I didn't see a rationale for removing it either. However, an editor named User:Guy Macon recently led and effort to remove religious identification in the categories and infobox for all 2016 presidential candidates on grounds of some sort of BLP violation. See the posts he left on all of their talk pages for more detail. I attempted to re-add religious categories for several articles, but was reverted by User:Xenophrenic. I presumed that Xenophrenic had not seen the Santorum article, and so I made the revisions to save him or her the trouble of doing it. I disagree with their actions, but in my attempts to restore religious identification to the articles, I have been rebuffed, largely on the grounds that it does not substantially impact their careers. For people like Santorum, whose religion clearly impacts his politics, I find this simply wrong. Even in cases in which religion does not significantly impact the public life of a candidate, I find that the information is still as useful as a birth date or place, and should be included. I'm sorry this happened. If you want a mention of Santorum's religion in the infobox and categories restored, talk to Guy Macon or Xenophrenic, or start an RfC. If you do this, I hope you succeed. You could always contact me for assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That RfC was already posted, and the consensus was overwhelming. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes. You are free to post another RfC asking the same question, but the result is likely to be the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99's explanation is mostly correct, but I'd like to add a little clarification. Following many RfCs (and the perennial arguments about the religion categories and|Religion= infobox field), the Wikipedia community decided in this most recent RfC to begin enforcing what has been longstanding (but often ignored) policy regarding the categorization of living people. The problems that keep occurring with these cats & fields have become so frequent and contentious that the community has moved to remove the field completely from general biographical infoboxes. Of course we can add religious identification to biographies as always, in the article body, but use of the restricted religion-related infobox fields and categories has always been limited to people whose religion is a defining characteristic of their public notability; like clergy or religious figureheads. Simply being very religious, even when that religion influences or 'impacts' an occupation, and is mentioned by some sources, doesn't make it a defining characteristic. Ask yourself, would the subject's religion be out of place in the lead sentence; do sources "commonly and consistently" refer to, for example, Rick Santorum, as Roman Catholic Santorum, rather than Senator Santorum? Is he famous because of his religion?

As Display name 99 mentioned, information on religion can be useful like a birth date or place, but unlike birth date or place, properly describing a person's religion is often controversial, and very often impossible, in the just one or two words allowed by categories and infobox fields. Guy Macon is indeed trying to bring biographical articles into compliance, and it appears he has chosen the small subset of "presidential candidates" with which to begin what is a much larger task. I've been helping occasionally, but not systematically, when my watch-list brings me to articles. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic and Guy Macon, can it at least be possible to limit this removal to BLPS? In most biographies of people now deceased, the religion is not controversial, but is a simple undisputed historical fact. Display name 99 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic and I cannot arbitrarily decide that an RfC that answers the specific question "Proposal: Should we remove from {{Infobox person}} the |religion= parameter (and the associated |denomination= one)?" only applies to BLPs. Feel free to post an RfC asking that the decision be limited to BLPs. I am just implementing the decision of the community, and I would be happy to only implement it on BLPs if a follow-up RfC shows that that is the community's decision -- it would be less work for me. BTW, have you read the arguments posted in the current RfC? That would give you a better insight as to why the community made their decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I had read it, yes. As you suggested, I posted an RfC containing my previous proposal. It may be found here. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

"For people like Santorum, whose religion clearly impacts his politics, I find this simply wrong." Well, yes. That would be what most editors are likely to think about the subject, and I think readers of Wikipedia would also reasonably expect to find Santorum categorized as a Catholic. His religion is pretty obviously relevant to his career as a politician, and it should be reasonably easy to find sources showing as much. In fact, I'd expect any editor who seriously wanted to improve the Rick Santorum article to find such sources. But if this kind of over-reaction is what happens when you point out that a religion-identifying category is appropriate, then to me this subject frankly is not worth dealing with at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You deleted a link for a definition of the word "grisly" from the page Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh, saying that wikipedia does not define words. Please consider (1) that this is a page about Bangladesh, where English is not the official language, but many readers come to the English wikipedia for information, and (2) why would the ability to make an inline like to wiktionary exist is it is verboten, disallowed, tabu? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You would do better to discuss this issue on the article's talk page, Sminthopsis84. It is indeed quite true that readers who are not proficient in English may come to the article looking for information, but how precisely will they be helped by the linking of a single word? Readers who are not proficient in English may potentially misunderstand or fail to recognize any English word, so the linking of a single term ("grisly") seems senseless. As for why the link to Wiktionary would be inappropriate, please see WP:EL. External links to sites such as Wiktionary belong in the "external links" section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Inline Wiktionary links are part of wikipedia; please see Help:Interwikimedia links. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Due to the sheer volume of visiting tourists and others, this edit is essential; PLEASE DO NOT AMEND/REMOVE UNTIL DISCUSSION/AGREEMENT:

"Wittgenstein was given a Catholic burial at Parish of the Ascension Burial Ground in Cambridge.[172] Drury later said he had been troubled ever since about whether that was the right thing to do.[173] The ledger gravestone has recently been refurbished by the British Wittgenstein Society. [174] detailed directions to his refurbished gravestone and grave can be found on http://www.britishwittgensteinsociety.org/wittgensteins-grave"

2.27.130.179 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:EL. You cannot place a link to an external website in the middle of an article that way. External links belong in the "external links" section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

Would you be able to add a coverage image to the 2003 Dragonlance Campaign Setting book? BOZ (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ. I'll look into this and see what I can do. Probably I will find something I can upload in the near future. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Night People (2015 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cat's Eye. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sekolah.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)