User talk:Lost in Quebec

Welcome!

Hi Lost in Quebec! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Philroc (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and formatting

Hello, I’m @Spectrallights. This message is in regards to an edit you made on the page Wrong Is Right. I saw that you added a review from The New Republic's Stanley Kauffmann. However, the URL you provided for the source was simply http://www.newrepublic.com. Wikipedia's citation guides state that "Links should be to full versions of the source." It is fine if a direct link cannot be found, but the citation should include as much info that is available of the source. For example, if you know the date of the review, volume number of the magazine issue, etc. then those should be included as part of the reference. Date of access is not necessary if a direct link cannot be located. I edited the reference to remove the broad URL to The New Republic's homepage and the date of access. If you have any questions or think I made a mistake, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Spectrallights (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa died in Kent which is the only reason our Town Clerk is the one who registered it.

I've been corresponding with the NY Times about their blatant error. The obituary acknowledges that the Kent Town Clerk registered her death and the physical location of the death is what decides what Town Clerk is the one who registers it...the statement that her home was "in Carmel" which relies on her mailing address notwithstanding.

Most of Kent gets its mail from the Carmel post office (more of the Town of Kent,geographically,than the portion of the Town of Carmel that gets its mail from there)...but we are not "in Carmel".(There has been spotty uptake of the "Kent Lakes" postal designation allowed to Kent addresses getting mail from Carmel PO).

My father died at our home in Kent that is about a mile closer to Carmel than Neil & Lisa's and it was registered by the Kent Town Clerk(Yolanda Cappelli) while my mother died at the hospital in Carmel and her death was registered by the Carmel Town Clerk(Ann Garris).

If you want to give your "reliable source" the benefit of the doubt,go with what must be inferred from their accurate statement that the Kent Town Clerk registered it (had Lisa actually died in Carmel the Carmel Town Clerk would have registered it)...not their naive reliance on the postal address.71.105.190.227 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:Alumni of St. Peter's College, Colombo, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please stop removing people from the location categories. I already asked you to discuss before reverting. Mason (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your changes. Please don't be disruptive, as diffusing people by geographic location does not require that they be residents of that location. Mason (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I didn't add any category and you never posted. And it is long standing consensus that going to a college somewhere doesn't make them from that place. Look here.[1]Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being buried somewhere doesn't make them from that place either. Is JFK or most anyone else buried at Arlington National Cemetery from Arlington Virginia? Nope. See the notable people criteria link aboveLost in Quebec (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

``

Those Florida schools also have students from multiple locations.Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And none of those greater Boston categories are from those states. If there was, the categories would be relevant.Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people criteria says born or lived. Not go to school, work there, or buried there. It also says 'For college towns where students resided in the town only during their college years, it is preferred to list those students in the "Notable alumni" section of their respective college article'.Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I added something when I didn't. Said I already asked you. No to that either. Who's being disruptive? I'd say its the editor putting falsehoods on this page as they don't respect consensus either on multiple pages.Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, I think you are conflating guidelines.

> "For college towns where students resided in the town only during their college years, it is preferred to list those students" this says nothing about the category, it only says about the individuals themselves.

Please point to where the consensus is that the alumni category cannot be placed in the people from FOO category. Mason (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that I did mistake you for a different editor from a conversation that I had User talk:Smasongarrison#Assuming that all people who attend a high school are residents of that place extremely recently. For that I apologize. Mason (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, reverting my change before discussion is not helpful, and bizarrely, your revert only asks "who is Mason?", what is that supposed to me? Mason (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told by multiple editors before me that your edits were improper. Despite my providing a link to notable people criteria, you are still asking for a link. This is increasingly a case of WP:IDHT. Is it necessary I summon an administrator? I did summon the two editors who discussed this with you earlier.Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really, how is this a case of IDHT? I am literally asking where the consensus is for CATEGORIES, not for people. I have also asked that you wait to revert until we discuss. Mason (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not reading what is written on your talk page or here directly below this by two other editors. Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're not at least attempting a good faith conversation here. I am aware of the policy for people, my point is that the criteria for categories is different. If anything, I think that having the alumni category placed the category would make it easier to enforce the notability for people criteria. 2600:1700:944:9810:7426:5E12:1963:FB46 (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told by 3 separate editors, 2 others besides me, that your edit are wrong. You reverted again after being informed you are wrong. I see there being no other choice but for me to summon an administrator. I suggest you stop unless you wish to be blocked.Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smasongarrison, it appears entirely unambiguous that consensus has been established here, in regard to a claim you made that "diffusing people by geographic location does not require that they be residents of that location". I have been clear that this is not the case, as have Lost in Quebec and User:Johnpacklambert. The consensus is clear that that students in a school or people buried in a cemetery do not meet the criteria of being from that place and that they should not be included in a Category:People from FOO structure for the place where the school or cemetery is located. Given this consensus, can you please refrain from making any further such changes to categories in direct conflict with this consensus. Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't understand why you're not even willing to discuss the difference between categories and pages. I think that there's a distinction, worth discussing. You both seem unwilling to even consider an alternative point of view. Mason (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think that you are conflating categories and pages, and that it's a conversation that I have attempted to bring up and have asked that you wait on reverting while the discussion was ongoing. Neither of you seem interested in actually having a discussion. Mason (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the consensus is clear here that college / high school students or people buried in a cemetery are NOT from that place and should not be listed as notable residents or included in a Category:People from FOO structure for the place where the school or cemetery is located. WP:USCITIES says that "For college towns where students resided in the town only during their college years, it is preferred to list those students in the 'Notable alumni' section of their respective college article...." Furthermore, as discussed at User talk:Smasongarrison#Assuming that all people who attend a high school are residents of that place, there is no reason to believe that all students who attended a high school are from the place where the high school is located. This would mean that students should only be categorized as being alumni of the school and not in a Category:People from FOO structure, a principle that is stated in even more detail here by User:Johnpacklambert. In an issue that has come up elsewhere, people buried in a cemetery in a particular place certainly don't belong in a Category:People from FOO structure as people buried in a place may never have step foot in that place in their entire lives.

I hope that this state the editing consensus here as clearly as possible. Alansohn (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I once attended a burial of a one time governor of Michigan that was literally done in a city he had never lived in. It was in Brighton, Michigan. Other than the time he was governor and resident in Lansing, Michigan, he had been a resident of either Detroit, Michigan or Bloomfield Hills, Michigan the entire time he was resident of Michigan. He also did some activities in Pontiac, Michigan. My impression at either the funeral or the burial was that even the choice of burrying him in Brighton was made by his widow and children after he died. Due to online and other remote schooling options it is possible for someone to have attended a school and even graduated from it without ever having been physically present at the school. There are probably some 2021 high school graduates in the US who had moved at the start of their senior year who never were physically at their high school, and a few of them may have never even physically been in the city the high school was in.12:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC). Sorry I forgot to sign this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but right now removing the alumni and burial categories from the people from FOO tree isolates the category from the location entirely. Mason (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lost in Quebec! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Category:Blanche Ely High School alumni several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Category talk:Blanche Ely High School alumni, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. FYI, this is edit warring. Mason (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least put them in a parent category? Mason (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on People from FOO. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have been asked repeatedly to stop mass reverting my edits. I already invited you to contribute to a CFD on this subject. Stop reverting the changes when the discussion is ongoing Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Should_occupation_categories_be_added_to_location_categories? Mason (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plane crash

Hello, I'm Kerry Raymond. I noticed that you recently removed content from Bakers Creek air crash without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kerry (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is per multiple talk page discussions, here[2] and here[3] are two such examples, that persons killed in a plane crash or survive it aren't named except if they have a article.

This issue also came up at a Administrator's noticeboard discussion but I don't remember when.Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lost_in_Quebec reported by User:Smasongarrison (Result: ). Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category changes...

In this edit on the Jock Yablonski artoicle why did you remove 'Category:Activists from Pittsburgh' and put 'Category:People from Pittsburgh' in its place? Shearonink (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the Joseph Yablonski Cat change, you removed 'Category:Activists from Pittsburgh' and substituted "Category:People from Pittsburgh' on two other articles - Brenda Frazier (politician) and George Becker (labor leader). You also removed ' Category:Sportspeople from Norfolk, Virginia' from Jay Harris (sportscaster) and substituted instead Category:People from Norfolk, Virginia.

The question remains...Why. These various Cat changes don't make sense to me but maybe I'm missing something? - Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that several of these have been subsequently reverted. Your Jay Harris change now makes sense to me but none of the others do. I am still wondering why you changed these articles categories in the first place. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The labor people were a mistake. I see now that trade unionists are considered activists. Sorry but I can't remember who it was, but I've seen one or two union people not categorized as activists when they could have been. No problem.

As for Harris, he isn't a sportspeople. Sportspeople is defined as athletes and unlike trade unionist categories being subcategories of activist ones, sports journalists or broadcasters aren't subcategories of sportspeople.Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your edits to Uno Loop.

Hi Lost in Quebec,

I have reverted your edit to the article Uno Loop. Your inclusion of the category Boxers from Tallinn is appreciated, but the subject wasn't only a boxer. He was an active triathlon competitor. As there is no Triathlon Competitors from Tallinn category, he should be in both the Boxers from Tallinn and Sportspeople from Tallinn categories. If he was only a boxer, then I agree that it would be inappropriate to categorize both, as Sportspeople From Tallinn would be the container category and Boxers from Tallinn the subcategory. ExRat (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pretty clear[4] a person doesn't go in both sportspeople and a specific sport category. Create a triathletes from Tallinn category. There is one other such person. It may not survive a CFD, because two entries are pretty low for a category. If you create the category I promise not to nominate for deletion or take part in any CFD should anyone else nominate it.Lost in Quebec (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, you're correct in that the category is probably too small to create as of now. I will simply add him to the larger Estonian male triathletes category. Cheers. ExRat (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorting people out from People into proper occupation subcategories. Some people who are in a occupation subcategory and people too are taken out of People from Tallinn. I just have created businesspeople from Tallinn. Right now it has 3 entries but I'm sure more can be found. 4 or more is usually CFD proof.Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Category:West Virginia University Institute of Technology people, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop mass removing parent categories for universities. It's disruptive, and the consensus is not with you. Mason (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus isn't with you. You know that too. The list of editors who disagree with you is long.Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]