User talk:Jack O'Lantern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Desertsky85450 (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 12 July 2006 (fansites). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jack, I don't believe you are right in your interpretation. The original research page does not rule out deductive reasoning, the example given is not deductive reasoning. I will get other people's opinion on this. Arniep 15:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jack, I just think you are misunderstanding the policy. Regards Arniep 15:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, you totally misread me. I would prefer the lists were deleted as I don't see how what country one of your forebears comes from has anything to do with with what these people are famous for (although it may in a few cases). But as long as they exist we should not be subjective about who is or is not included by being picky about words. Arniep 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Moore

Although it was originally submitted by Parys, it appears to not be a hoax. See [1] (you have to register to view the magazine scans) Mad Jack 20:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are right - so thanks for noticing that. Weird that the magazine made such an error. However, the paragraph that you deleted had some relevant and properly sourced info, so I ought to restore part of it. BTW, I am going to submit this to FA status very soon. Do you have any thoughts on possible improvements/etc.? Appreciated Mad Jack 05:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fashion magazine. I wouldn't expect them to get everything right when it comes to music (they may even have been taken in by the info on Wikipedia). I personally wouldn't re-add it until something official is announced. I'm not really a fan of Mandy Moore myself and I only started keeping an eye on the article when a vandal I was chasing started goofing with it. I do think that the magazine cover scan in the infobox may prove to be a copyright problem in the context it's used in though... --Kurt Shaped Box 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

aight

well I'mma look it up cuz lots of french jews moved to the us before the war. But trust me the last name Lyone is definitely not jewish and most likely french. I'll look my sources but thanks for precising before editing, I apprreciated. And actually thanks for launching a debate on these french americans, but you've removed way too many. Time to write some back, I've spent the last two years on working on this project. (though it was for my university). take care buddy Abdelkweli 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leblanc has french ancestry. he's a french-american. his last name is french. What's a french-american anyway? It's like what's an american? nothing they all come from somewhere in Europe. Matt LeBlanc is a french-american! Abdelkweli 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Isis

Yes, Mad Jack - I know. Just trying to interject some humour here; too much tension. :)

Women lawyers

It does, indeed, exist. I've added a few people in the past, and I just checked Allred and saw she wasn't listed, which is a bit unusual. Michael 07:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's more significant to have a women lawyers category, as it wasn't common for women to practice law in large numbers until recently. If we had a men lawyers category, who knows how many hundreds we would have listed. Michael 07:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's very true...In today's society, sexism and whatnot can be twisted in either way...For example, giving up your seat while waiting for a table at a restaurant may be viewed as merely doing it because she's a female, and not doing it may make you look anti-female. The world has gone mad. Michael 07:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Jack, please at least try and act civily, you do not own these lists however much work you have put into them. Arniep 09:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:MandyMooreImage.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MandyMooreImage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. feydey 21:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR on ethnicity lists

Thanks for letting me know. You're absolutely right, of course. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Perpich

I have re-added Rudy Perpich to List of Croatian Americans. If the source I have cited in the article is insufficient, please read my comments on the article's Talk page in which I have cited a second source providing further justification for Perpich's inclusion in the article. --TommyBoy 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I've never heard this and can find nothing on it. Get me a source!"

Yes, well, it was a pretty weird fact, lol. Michael 07:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm working on the women lawyers...Having to rake through about twenty pages of names (mostly male) on just the American lawyers page is more time-consuming than one might imagine. Then, of course, there's no alphabetical order in the cats...Well, I'd best get back to work. Twenty-two more letters in the alphabet to go, lol. Michael 07:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I got through all of the American lawyers, adding the females to the Women lawyers cat. Now, tomorrow I shall begin with women lawyers from other nations. It's 5:00 AM, and I should really be in bed. Michael 08:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is very inconsistent (surprise, surprise) in how to handle category links for articles and categories where both have the same name (such as Lincoln). Not only true for bio articles, but also other types of articles. Is there policy guidance on this? If there is policy, is it clear and unambiguous. If not, something should be proposed and approval obtained as there are many article/category with links in one or other (either may be wrong) and with links in both article and category (usually not helpful). Thanks Hmains 16:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not questioning your change to Lincoln, I just looked at Lincoln and saw more possibles for change and have been noting this problem in lots of articles/categories I have looked at in the past several weeks. I had no good idea where the links should be so I did not touch most of them yet and wondered about policy help. Thanks Hmains 16:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater

Shouldn't Deepwater be considered a 2005 film since it was screened at at least two film festivals in June 2005? I'm not quite sure what Wikipedia goes by, but IMDb has it as 2005...-Bri 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you have some sort of method, I'll go with it, becuase it works for me...-Bri 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abdel kweli

my article was named American of French descent not French-Americans. Abdelkweli 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for answering kindly and debating with arguments. I really liked your last message, I guess it's easier to work hands in hands. In the case that you can't confirm how ("much") french someone is, how can you confirm how "much" nationality most americans are? It's more of a debating question, not an aggressive question and I know wikipedia is not the place to debate this but it should be. anyway take care and good luck Abdelkweli 17:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Diller

Just wanted to let you know I wrote articles on Killer Diller and Clyde Edgerton, the author of the original novel on which the film is based. Just wanted to "complete" Lucas' filmography.-Bri 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fansites

Eh, its all good. I'm having delightful fun removing crap, and most fansites are really just total brownnosing BS. Please do replace a link that I shouldn't have deleted, but I feel most of them shouldn't be linked here at all. Desertsky85450 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish

Jayjg and GN disagree with your interpretation as they specifically say that they must be sourced as "Irish-American" not Irish. Arniep 00:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Irish-American is a label, as you stated yourself. Arniep 00:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Mancini

I have no clue what is going on with that article. The user isn't even signed on and is currently using an IP address. Even if this user doesn't have a malicious intent, isn't it common knowledge that you must capitalize proper terms and the words at the start of sentences? It looks like it might be vandalism, but I don't know. I want to see if she replies to the questions I asked on her talk page. Michael 02:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

french

unlike italians and irish, french-americans arrived in the US more than two centuries ago. Their first exodus from Canada was in 1740 when England conquered Quebec. Henry David Thoreau is 100% french, there is no doubt about that. thanks for your useful contribution. Abdelkweli 19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

true, but i guess it's because we have different definitions of french-american. Even though my mom is french, my dad has been american for 15-16 generations and yet to me and to himself, he's a french-american. but well. take care, it's great to see people ike you getting interest by our french heritage. When you first touched on the article I had made up, I had kinda felt offended because I have worked so much on it, but now it's past let's keep contributing. I would like to write something on french heritage but I don't really know how. Do you have any ideas or advices for a wikinewbie like me? take care. Abdelkweli 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! Abdelkweli 23:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna

I'm not intending on leaving, so you might as well do it now. Michael 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source for Emeril is clear. Michael 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the Emeril quote. Michael 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search would also reveal the Emeril quote appearing here [2]in an interview in which he makes clear how his ancestry has had an influence on him.
PS: Have your Portuguese roots influenced your cooking in any way?
EL: There's no question about it. My mom is Portuguese and my dad is French Canadian. The solid foundations of those heritages, cultures and techniques, melded with my education and classical background lead to my style of cooking which has been coined "new New Orleans."
Michael 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Blumas

I am not so sure about this personal life section that "someone" added to Trevor Blumas. It seems to be going in the same direction as the previous stuff we remove and is poorly sourced. (I presume this is the person whose edits you were going after) Mad Jack 19:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not happy with that section being in the article as it does appear to me as though it's part of that same person's strange agenda. I'm not entirely sure if that reference is legit or not, as the editor in question has created fake articles elsewhere on the web to support his/her claims on Wikipedia in the past. I'm keeping my eye on it at the moment, though I'm not really sure what to do next, TBH. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:What to do next? Delete it - well, I just did. Wikipedia:Biographies of living people advises us to delete unsourced negative content immediately. The source cited, aside from being irreputable, did not support the paragraph's content. I'm guessing FireGirl has no legit source - so this will have to be deleted over and over. Mad Jack 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being bold and taking the decision out of my hands - I've been umming and aaahing over it for a couple of days now. I wasn't entirely sure as to whether that site could be considered a 'reputable source' or not. From what I can gather from Google, someone has been purposefully spreading this rumour across the web and usenet (the writing style seems *very* familiar) and it may be the case that a reputable (?) website and the tabloid press has picked it up. It certainly seems to me that someone has an agenda here. How utterly bizarre. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Unspecified source for Image:Pfeifferm.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pfeifferm.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Note that any unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 01:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnie Question

I am flattered that you took the time to respond to the question I had asked of Arnie, but I did address it to Arnie to see his intent on the matter. I'm well aware of your position in regards to this, yet that does not hinder our resolve to amend policy, as Wikipedia is by us, the editors. To respond to what you previously stated about how other editors have used this, I'd like to point out that you have been the only one who has been this strict in the interpretation of this Wikipedia policy, creating your own definitions. Nonetheless, we will continue in our attempts to change this. Michael 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

:) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

imdb

I disagree that IMDB can't be used. IMDB should never be used for negative material, or disputed facts. However, there are many facts which are undisputed, and which are often, not even cited. Using IMDB is reasonalbe for those. It's also reasonable as a backup (for instance to confirm what's said elsewhere). If a fact rests solely on IMDB, and it's not reliable, than the fact should be removed with the cite. Removing the citation, while keeping the fact, doesn't do anything to improve reliability of the article. It merely hides where the information came from. --Rob 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember we're not only using sources like academics use them. We cite things that go without citing in regular encyclopedia, or in an acadmeic setting. We give citations for well-known non-disputed facts because it helps RC patrollers weed-out most (not all) plausible-change vandalism (e.g. somebody changes a birthdate by one day). IMDB is better than no source, and it's legit as a backup source. Those articles (like Christian Activities), for instance, may go offline, but imdb won't. You have to distinguish between sources used for "rapid checks" and those used for more thorough investigation.
We now have no source for Katelyn Tarver's birthdate. Also, sometimes publicatons will say a person is a "native" of a town, when they're not born there, but raised from a baby. So, her birth place is not sourced properly either. If you think we can't trust the fact, you sould remove the fact, not just the citation. Also, you should have at least left IMDB in "External Links" so people can easily access it, if they wish. This is a pretty standard link. --Rob 19:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why u deleting Croats?

Bernard Tomic is a Croat, his parents were Croatian refugees that moved to Germany for 3 years during the war...

Alyson Michalka / Creationist

I would like to mention that THIS LINK was already given on the Aly & AJ page as a source for that arguement. I would like to know if you believe that is enough, as I don't want to start an edit war on the subject. She, along with her sister (Amanda Michalka), have stated other times as well their belief, but I apologize for not knowing web-links to prove other statements. Please just let me know, as I think it is a crucial part of her article. Thank you. Jay 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I will. Thanks for taking the time to look it up. I appreciate you're cooperation on the subject, and will take you're advice on adding the info. Thanks. Jay 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hüvasti/Bye-Bye.

  • I wasn't addressing you, I was addrssing someone else on their discussion page, thanks. You seem to be becoming like a malingering flu to my Wiki experience. Can we please say "goodbye" now? Thank you. ExRat 01:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biracial page

My only worry with that is that people may have difficulty attempting to make additions. It's a bit more complex than the way the other pages were. Michael 07:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the "French-American" cat which we do not use, I have placed an AfD template on that page, which has absolutely not intent. Michael 07:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The weird thing was that no one had ever submitted that one for deletion. It was just there, even though it was labeled as a non-page. Pretty weird... Michael 07:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Louise Lee

You needn't worry, Jack...I was trying to better that page about that woman, since it was so horrible to begin with, but I'd actually like to know who she really is, because, to be honest, that article did not make it tremendously clear. I think that's the only one you deleted, aside from that Mancini one, which we later found out was vastly fake, even though I had previously assumed good faith, thinking that user just did not know how to capitalize or utilize correct punctuation. I believe that's it, though, right? :) Michael 03:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far? Oh, that's wonderful to know...I often go to "recent changes" to comment on new articles. That's where I saw the Lee article and that weird Atlau Fashion House article you probably saw, where I atttempted to ask the author what that actually was, yet the answers were very evasive. Michael 03:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to give your last two comments on my talk page a header for better order. I feel awkward doing that to other people's comments, as I usually just copy the first few words of the first sentence, followed by an ellipses (...).
Thanks for adding the header...and yes, the Atlau affair is pretty weird. I'd rather read topics that are actually interesting, but this article was a bit strange. Michael 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cruel and heartless; I know. :) MichaelZ526 05:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Aaron3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aaron3.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"or something like that"

I was on the article one second (or so I thought), and I saw that, noting how unprofessional it was for article inclusion, deleting it, only to realize that was the talk page. MichaelZ526 01:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if there's a source, you have no choice (as with Jackie Kennedy). MichaelZ526 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bunyan

Paul Bunyan belongs on that list just as much as the Statue of Liberty does. :) MichaelZ526 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong! When the Statue of Liberty was on the talk list, I deleted it. It is certainly not a person...For that matter, fictional people don't classify as real people. Imagine what our lists would look like then! MichaelZ526 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if you apply Wiki policy to the fictional pages, you'll end up removing virtually everyone...unless you want to watch every television show and scour eevry transcript...That sounds fun (sarcasm)... :) MichaelZ526 02:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense do they need cleanup? MichaelZ526 02:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, eliminating some people from those lists would be moderately incorrect. Many Internet sources may not say some things, or shows may no longer have websites. The only source might actually be the television show, movie, etc. Unless you actually know of one of those characters, changing it might be difficult without access to appropriate sources. MichaelZ526 02:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's not something you're specifically qualified to decide on, ask the person who posted that category or made the addition to the list where he or she got this information from as opposed to just deleting it. With TV shows, it's a bit different, as there usually isn't quite as much obscurity with characters' backgrounds if they are explicitly painted as being a certain nationality or of a certain ethnicityMichaelZ526 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps too much fun... :) MichaelZ526

Brooke Shields-What a Joke

Is that article a joke? I don't think I've seen many Wikipedia articles that have had more of a negative impact on me... MichaelZ526 02:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps...the seriousness with which the "whitest white girl" quote was added, the number of cats (about seven ethnicities), and...Oh, she's "descended" from five Popes? So much for celibacy... MichaelZ526 02:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seriously wondering now which Popes have legitimately had children...It seems like spam-definitely one of the stranger things I've read on Wikipedia... MichaelZ526 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot convert me, but calling her an Arab because she may be a descendant of Mohammed...I, too, have limits. Going back several hundred years and saying she "may" be descended from someone...I'm certain if you go back even just a few hundred years, almost everyone of European descent could be traced to a few countries they were unaware of. The other thing is that with royalty, they are often descended from people of other countries. I once heard the Royal Family in England is actually mostly German when it comes to their forebearers... MichaelZ526 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really possible to convert me...Yeah, that Brooke Shields article...It hurts your eyes... MichaelZ526 03:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but that was just an example of tremendous extremism. MichaelZ526 03:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but if she had stated, "I am Italian, German, Irish, English, Arabic, and Scottish," we'd have no choice but to list them. MichaelZ526 03:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we'd include it if someone said, "I'm Italian, Polish, and Russian." MichaelZ526 03:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't use that policy, do we? MichaelZ526 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Purely policy"...Wouldn't that mean they were fully one nationality as some have said, or were you just talking about what you have been doing?" MichaelZ526 03:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Balfour

Is there a reason you deleted the source for his heritage? MichaelZ526 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, how did you see what he had said? Is there still a quote somewhere? You should retrieve it, if possible, to ensure that no one deletes it as being unverified. MichaelZ526 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not weird the source died. The source was an interview just after he had been cast in Conviction. MichaelZ526 03:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we using "AmIAnnoying" as a source? I wasn't sure by your last comment...The site doesn't look official...I guess that's what you were saying? MichaelZ526 04:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the initial steps to take in order to upload a photograph from a free, public domain source? MichaelZ526 04:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... MichaelZ526 04:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of a cat for fictional murder victims? I'm thinking of making one. MichaelZ526 05:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly... MichaelZ526 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional murder victims

Yes, apparently, they did...Strange TV series, it appears. Witches can sometimes be brought back to life? I was searching for fictional characters and found that. MichaelZ526 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we cannot discriminate. She was the victim (seems like an inappropriate term in this case) of a murder. MichaelZ526 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but having a cateogry for every type of death (murder, killing, maslaughter, suicide, revenge killings) would be a bit frivolous. When not considering the legal application, the term has been used in various placements. That was what I meant. I'm not in a mood to argue about it, though. MichaelZ526 07:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreyfus

What are you talking about. In the first sentance her article says "Her father is French billionaire Gerard Louis-Dreyfus (who changed his name to William in the 1940s).". Arniep 17:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe he grew up in the U.S. The major problem with you stubbornly insisting that we not use descent in the title of the lists is that Italian-American, Irish-American are much more commonly used phrases than French-American (or lots of other "quieter" groups), thus there is either not much point in insisting they have been identified as French American or there is not much point in having a list of that title. Arniep 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding here because I have been "autoblocked", for the 50th time this year, because I share my IP with some idiot vandal. So I hope you see this. If the term French-American is not often used, why the heck is Wikipedia ought to frequent its usage? In any case, check out List of French Americans. Perfectly fine and perfectly sourced under Wiki policy. Sure, some people who are at most "ethnically half French" are excluded, but so what? As for Louis-Dreyfus, yes, her father was born in France but his mother was American. According to the article, he considered himself "American" too. If you have a source that said he was French, you could list him under French Americans if he was notable enough. As for Louis-Dreyfus herself - zero reason to put her under French-Americans if no source has called her that. Why would we? She's probably not "ethnically French" at all and I doubt she considers herself French American, so what's the big loss? Mad Jack 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, again most of the people on the "French-American" list are not sourced as "French-Americans" at all. Please stop making up policy to fit the work you have already done. Arniep 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason why that list and many of the other lists where the phrase X-American is not often used exists is that it would not exactly be fair to have a huge list of Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans because those phrases are more often used and nothing for the others would it. Maybe that is another reason why the lists are unworkable. Arniep 18:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you listen to Jayjg and GraceNote? They have to be sourced as X-Americans not as Xs or that their family are Xs. Arniep 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, don't pretend that these lists are anything other than ethnic pride lists. They have no real encyclopedic value. Arniep 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, we are not talking about the list of British Jews, that is a different case. We are talking about the lists of "X-Americans". When people talk about "X-Americans" they talk about exactly that, not just Xs. Both GN and Jayjg have both specifically stated that the people must be sourced as "X-Americans". And when did you decide you don't accept " my family is X" as you stated you did exactly that on the X-American discussion? Dear oh dear you are falling apart aren't you. Arniep 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arniep I can not edit because I am again autoblocked, as I say above, for the 50th time this year, because of some idiot vandal on my IP address. I guess this is the price I pay for having a Cogeco connection. Anyway, "Dear oh dear you are falling apart aren't you" is a stupid and annoying personal attack by you, incredibly ironic considering your "concerns" for civility up above. I'm not usually one to shake civil rights around, but... Anyway, this whole subject is incredibly annoying. We can discuss each name individually, as we did for Ms. Louis-Dreyfus. Mad Jack 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fansites

I'm a big fan of getting rid of what doesn't belong on wikipedia. I wish I could tackle some of the tin-foil hat conspiracy bullshit that is out there, or the blatent POV stuff, but I don't have the time to deal with crazy people. Fansites are easy, since most of the people who post them aren't registered users and don't have my patience for checking back again and again, and deleting again and again. Best of luck with your wiki endeavors! Desertsky85450 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_O%27Lantern&oldid=63461415"