User talk:PanchoS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome from Journalist[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, PanchoS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Journalist (talk · contribs)

Disambig link in Template:Germany tourism Constance area[edit]

In Template:Germany tourism Constance area, do you know which "Biberach" is supposed to be linked to? BD2412 T 01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have disambiguated it to Biberach an der Riß. Kusma (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Sedan.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sedan.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:Philippine fraternities and sororities]][edit]

I'm curious, what is the reason for the move of the [[Category:Philippine fraternities and sororities]] and [[Category:Philippine_student_societies]]?Naraht (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Sure. I'm trying to overcome the chaotic categorization in this whole topic by implementing a slightly more rigid category tree. This includes a consistent naming scheme (in this case: "Student societies in COUNTRYNAME"), while currently there are three or four naming schemes for categories mixed up. I wonder if 'Philippine fraternities and sororities' are basically something different than 'Student societies' in the other countries, or if this distinction really is needed. Do you really prefer this to consistency? Regards, PanchoS (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for Puerto Rico fraternites and sororities, I changed it backEl Johnson (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • For the Philippines, I think the change was simply "Philippine X" to "X in the Philippines", which isn't necessarily wrong. The Puerto Rico one, OTOH, changed from fraternities and sororities to Student societies. OTOH, the categories for things like lists of members of fraternities and sororities uses the term student societies. I'd be interested in trying to figure out what goes into the consistent naming scheme, and what shouldn't. For the Philippines, all fraternities and sororities would be viewed as societies, but not all societies are counted as fraternities and sororities, particularly the ethnic based groups which don't go by greek letters.Naraht (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi, Naraht! I'm with you considering "Student societies" the slightly broader concept than "fraternities and sororities". As the student traditions and the names are quite diverse throughout the world, it is not that easy to come up with a consistent naming scheme. However, I do understand that there must be a way to deal with the differences such as fraternities vs. ethnic societies. So we probably want to subdivide "Student societies" to "fraternities and sororities", "ethnic based societies" or "academic societies". On one hand, the parent category "Student societies" seems unnecessary then. On the other hand, in many countries there will be just plain "Student societies" which are neither fraternities nor ethnic nor whatever else. I therefore tend to keep "student societies" as the main category allowing for subdivisions. What do you think? Regards, PanchoS (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology[edit]

I have nominated Category:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Fences&Windows 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology[edit]

I have nominated Category:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Fences&Windows 00:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

re: recent category creations[edit]

Hi. It appears that you've created several new categories regarding Jewish fraternities and AEPi. I've been working for many years to walk the line on this issue so as to not upset the other historically Jewish organizations. In order to avoid conflict, let's just leave it how it was before you created these, unless you have a specific reason to change it. Thanks. --Mblumber (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You dismissed Category:Christian university organizations out of turn[edit]

Category dismissed out of turn by User:PanchoS, and emptied out of turn.

Was that you also, I would guess? Don't do this. Use a WP:CfD, dude. Carlaude:Talk 00:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to tell me when you say "Was that you also"? Yes, as you can see, it was me who redirected this cat. Possibly you gained so much bad experience in the Wikipedia community that you rightaway expect any ill intentions. Contrary to that I did this move in the course of creating a better, more consistent and more comprehensive structure for youth organizations. And believe me, I invested a lot of time in improving the categorization the last days.
Fact is the categorization was (and mostly still is) very fragmented and bears a consistent outline. The category you are talking about had only a few members, which means it covered maybe some random 2% of Christian university organizations. I gave most of the members a better place in the category tree and purged out the rest to Christian organizations.
You are right in that this was wrong and that I should have filed a CfD. I'm gonna try harder to avoid such a situation from now on. But please also try harder to keep polite and don't disrespect the hard work of others. PanchoS (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Before I delete this category, can you show where discussion occured to gather consensus to remove articles from the category? And can I please have a list of the articles you removed from this category? Also, where is the alternative category that these articles now exist within? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi PanchoS, I'm not sure if you are about, but would you be able to provide an answer to this question? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
If PanchoS tells us when the changes were done they can be found in the Special:Contributions/PanchoS page. Carlaude:Talk 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Political and economic think tanks based in Germany[edit]

I reverted your redirect of Category:Political and economic think tanks based in Germany. Apart from the fact that it was a bad idea, since it is part of category structures Germany and Category:Think tanks based in Germany, you should get used to taking category renames. merges and deletions to WP:CFD. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Conservative organisations[edit]

I have nominated Category:Conservative organizations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nikolay Bliznakov[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Nikolay Bliznakov requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

J-Ethinomics[edit]

Hello, you either prodded or endorsed prod on J-Ethinomics. The article creator left a note on the article talk page indicating that deletion is not uncontroversial. Therefore, I have opened an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-Ethinomics. Please opine at that discussion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Simon-in-sagamihara[edit]

Hi PanchoS. I've blocked Simon for reasons explained here - feel free to comment. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Conjunction or disjunction?[edit]

I don't really understand what is the difference between, say, Virovitica-Podravina County and Michelson–Morley experiment, as opposed to Lennard-Jones potential, because:

  • Virovitica and Podravina - two entities
  • Michelson and Morley - two entites
  • Lennard and Jones - single entity (Lennard-Jones)

I'm not sure that renaming of county names is warranted. GregorB (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

...and I'd like to hear your comment on this, that's why I'm posting here. GregorB (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, when I read it first, I didn't have time to answer and then forgot about it. But you are right in that there is no fundamental difference to the Michelson–Morley experiment. In both cases the dash replaces the conjunction 'and', which is usually represented by a hyphen. That this case is listed as ause case for indicating disjunction in WP:DASH looks quite odd to me and I will certainly join the discussion over this MOS paragraph. I nominated these articles for rename to achieve consistency with their respective categories after a speedy CfD was turned down (where I shared Good Ol'factory's plausible argument that these are conjunctions, not discunctions). While I would still say that our point is right and this needs to be discussed on a general basis, for now you are right in that there need to be en-dashes according to WP:DASH. One argument for the use of hyphens remains: that hyphens are used both officially and unofficialy in Croatian. However, the best thing to do seems to discuss this at a Requested Move. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the issue is slightly more complicated than it appears. Thanks for the clarification. GregorB (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response! How should we proceed ? PanchoS (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure myself. Let's say we have a Šibenik-Knin County and a Šibenik-Knin (Railway) Line. In both of these cases we are speaking of two entities, Šibenik and Knin, but I don't think that the dash has the same meaning in both cases. In the former case, there is really a conjunction ("and"), while in the latter there is not. This reasoning appears to be compatible with the three examples I gave (extrapolating from WP:DASH), but I'm not sure whether this reasoning itself is valid or not. GregorB (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD tags[edit]

Hi! When nominating categories for speedy renaming, please use {{subst:cfr-speedy}} instead of {{db-c2}}. The latter is meant for empty categories where the renaming has been already been completed. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Educational organizations[edit]

Sorry PanchoS, but I have objected to your speedy renamings.

You were right to spot that the category had a lack of consistency in naming, but while your proposed solution was right in the context of that category, I think it's wrong in a wider context. I suggest that the sub-cats of Category:Educational organizations by country should use the "based in" format of other organisations categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Political organisations[edit]

Can you please provide a rationale for why these categories are being created? What is a "political organisation" anyway? And why are you creating them exclusively with American spelling in violation of WP:ENGVAR? If there is no valid rationale I will be deleting them and restoring the parties structure accordingly - it's disruptive to do this sort of stuff without appropriate consultation (not least because mistakes are made which someone then has to correct, whereas if it's done properly then there's feedback before one starts). Orderinchaos 04:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also your proposed regionalisation violates WP:OR. Orderinchaos 04:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and think tanks and youth parliaments are not "political organisations". Orderinchaos 05:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
And trade unions are not political organisations, nor are student unions student political organisations. Orderinchaos 06:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
After speaking with a number of other editors, I decided to proceed anyway - all except a few which preexisted this particular push have now been deleted and the edits putting them in place have been reverted. There are others of concern too when I look through your edit history - none of which show any evidence of consultation and several of which are straight-out wrong - particularly the regionalisations. I note also that a fair few people have expressed concerns above on your talk page. I would suggest that in future if you wish to conduct a grand scheme of category design, you first do your research so you understand what you are dealing with/talking about, then approach the affected projects first and get consensus and feedback (consensus for major changes is in fact core policy) - it follows that the more users that are affected, the wider the consensus needed, and you may actually need to start an RFC and advertise it to all projects and get in someone who knows what they're doing to moderate it. If you proceed as you have been with what basically amounts to disruptive (although well-meaning) editing on a grand scale, I will be requesting that your ability to do so through HotCat is switched off. Orderinchaos 06:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian organisations[edit]

It is seen with some relief you are organising some speedy changes of Student and Religious organisation categories - please could you also include New Zealand and pakistan as both also utilise english spelling.

I must say after looking at your massive amount category work - are you trying to change the world or what? Is there some interest in categories that forgoes actual article editing at all? It is very unusual to find any editor who seem so preoccupied with categories, their wording or their structures within category trees.... specially less than 10,000 edit editors SatuSuro 12:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said there was anything specifically wrong - but it is odd - to find a recent new editor in english wikipedia doing so many changes - with a lack of understanding of the s/z usage you certainly will find some challenges to face your early dismissals of the issue :)

As to whether it is help is another matter and might be so in your opinion - massive category changes are hard for the average editor to keep track of - and there are many who lack adequate understanding of the processes and principles that are involved with WP:Categorisation - so you are capable of making changes that some editors will come across much later after your activity - it is not a primary focus of many editors.

So you may well might find retrospective concern (ie delayed responses) at some of the changes - rather than a current interest - as it will not be the average editor who will have 2,000- 3,000 or more categories on their watch list :) - and in some cases it might only be the 10 or so editors who inhabit the Cfd territory on a very regular basis.

So in your personal desire or need to 'cleanup' a particular part of the categories that are wikipedia wide - you might well find that variation in usage and spelling and context not easily translateable to your own context or background. I would always advise from my experience - go somewhere else first to test others with the ideas. Something like going to Cfd area editors who you might interact with and putting up an idea on their talk pages - you are more likely to find out much more quicker than watching cfd - it does not always have the final answer - but it is well worth the effort to actually ask and you might also find that you will be given advice if you ask for it - that might be a good learning process - rather than trying to fight or argue with deletion or removal of your work - a bit of good old WP:AGF and communication might help you in your current activities.

But be sure - many of your changes at Cfd are good ones and are cleaning things up - do not get that wrong - I am not saying your overall effort is not producing results - it would be very helpful all round if you could also go somewhere first before doing big amounts of changes that might be worth sharing with others before you start.... But hey its your choice in the end...

And also - nuances of language usage between american or australian or english editors - can actually have a range of subtle differences - take care!

So as much as you find the s/z issue imposing just try considering the variations as found at the top of Glossary_of_Australian_railway_terminology - there is actually acknowledgement of different languages for such items SatuSuro 13:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I really appreciate your conciliatory response, especially after we clashed a bit just a few hours ago on Category talk:Political parties in Indonesia. You encountered me there in a bit patronizing way, and I certainly reacted a bit more edgily than necessary. However, I definitely always assume good faith. I know enough about the preconceptions we're all entangled in, me, you, every single human. And while most of us take pains to be as unbiased as possible, noone can abandon his or her world view. It's exactly this, why I sometimes react a bit irritated if someone says: "This is true – that is wrong". Given that in a few cases, explicit rules or guidelines apply clearly distinguishing right from wrong, still in most cases the picture is more complex and might include contradictory or even dialectical aspects. So it is perfectly understandable why people take different stences on various questions without one being more honest than the other.
    Still, being honest or doing things in good faith is only a good basis – it is inevitable that people (again including me, you, everyone) stress those aspects of a certain decision that support their personal preference and tend to underexpose other aspects that question their personal preference. This is a necessary feature of our brain, and might still lead to people erroneously questioning the honesty or the good faith of someone. All we can do to this is 1. being as transparent as possible about what we do, 2. be open to criticism brought up in a constructive way, 3. understand that there is often not a single best solution.
    Now, what I'm doing here includes being bold (WP:SOFIXIT) while still trying to be careful. Certainly, in the meanwhile I have learned more about some processes and aspects, and am more careful now than I was one month ago. And I will certainly be even more careful in the near future than I was some days ago. Still, I will make one or the other obvious error, which in some case might be annoying. However I'm certainly ready to face constructive criticism. That's all not new to me, so I was quite shocked to see Orderinchaos question my good faith and more.
    However, you are right in that I can vastly improve on my communication efforts on user talk pages and portals, and I will try hard to do so in order to come closer to my ideals as stated above.
    Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I would not have had the outlook on the world like I have now a year ago - but having done a world trip late last year for a while (I have a friend in Chile who survived the earthquake, I have walked some famous cities etc etc) I am ever more concerned on wikipedia that anyone - no matter whether a 300 edit or a 300,000 edit history tries 'to make sense' of issues by categories or trying to make cross wiki changes is likely to have more than a few things to trip up on - (at least you have a sense of the dialectic ) - which is more than I can say for some eds who try to think they WP:OWN the place - so take care and beware the foibles of inter-racial, inter-regional and inter-national variants that keep some parts of wikipedia quaint and highly variable despite the best efforts of the geographically and culturally challenged to make 'one size fits all' type remedies - oh and btw the Australasia category I put up for deletion  :) and I do not support its reinstatement - but that is a long story - some other time SatuSuro 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Rescuebarnstar.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
For turning a sow's ear into a purse. Dlohcierekim 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Libertas Austria AfD[edit]

Hi. I saw your comments at WP:Articles for deletion/Libertas Austria and checked over your merging work. I approached the closer at User talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit#Libertas AfD. I think that your interpretation of WP:Copying within Wikipedia is correct, but the AfD may not have been clear enough to close as delete. Thanks for making the effort to attribute those merges properly. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Centrist organizations[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Centrist organizations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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) 16:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Centrist organizations CfD[edit]

Hi PanchoS

FYI: I took your advice and added Category:Centrist political parties to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 8#Centrist_organizations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cologne Classical Ensemble[edit]

I have responded to your comment.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application[edit]

Re: 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application

PanchoS, Fences&Windows, JohnCD, hi!

Thank you for notifying me of the deletion discussion for 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application. Unfortunately, limited Internet access (sadly, still ongoing) prevented me from paricipating in the discussion (or even knowing of its existence). Dealing with the points raised during the discussion:

  • PanchoS: during the discussion, you said "...The "Libertas-cyclopedia" this author posted to Wikipedia has some 20 articles plus 10 categories plus a huge navbar, as if we were talking about an important party with a long history. In fact the party has little to no influence, few members and exactly one mandate in the European Parliament. Neither this nor the short history nor the few substantial information there is about this party grants a separate article for these sub-topics..."
My reply: The importance of Libertas.eu lay not in the party per se: its importance lay in the structure of, and evolution of, political parties at European level (aka Europarties). The reason why I spent so much time on it was by developing a structure for the articles on Libertas, we could have rolled out articles with a similar structure for the other Europarties. Libertas.eu was born, lived and died in a blaze of publicity, so each step in its development was signposted. By noting those steps we could have structured the present articles on the other Europarties using the same signposts and, as new ones emerged, done the same for future Europarties.
  • JohnCD: during the discussion, you said "...a single author is spamming Wikipedia with innumerable articles about a subject that deserves no more than one. This is a transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to exaggerate its importance, contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT..."
My reply: As I said above, the articles were an attempt to develop a structure for articles on the birth, life and death of Europarties. That structure could have been used (hopefully, still can) for the other Europarties.
No violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT was intended - arguably, no violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT actually occurred. The relevant passage in WP:NOTE reads "...If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article..." (WP:SIGCOV). The 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition article met this, in multiple news articles across multiple countries in multiple languages.
  • Fences&Windows: during the discussion, you said "...they are political geekery and trivia of the highest order..."
My reply: Guilty, and cheerfully so: I may put that quote on my homepage when I get reliable Internet access again...:-) More seriously, political geekery neither qualifies nor disqualifies article existence: WP:NOTE does, and I refer you to my comments above.
  • Summary: the Libertas articles were not written as a partisan gesture: they were an attempt to develop a stucture for all Europarty articles.
  • Summary of the summary: don't be so quick to WP:ABF, huh?...:-)
  • To all: The 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application dealt with an important point in the creation of Europarties: the relevant legislation mandates a minimum number of supporters, but previous Europarties had previously defined "supporters" as political parties: Libertas defined them as political individuals. The accompanying confusion had legal implications for the birth of Europarties and (by extension) the articles on those parties (when does an Europarty come into existence? What is its exact birthdate?). The points in the article and their sources were intended to be used in the political party at European level article. Given this, if the article (or at least the sources) could be resurrected and placed on my homepage, I would be grateful, although I appreciate that may not be possible.

I have limited Internet access, so I may not be able to read your replies for some time. Neverthless, please feel free to reply on my talk page.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Educational organizations in Austria[edit]

I have nominated Category:Educational organizations in Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Educational organisations in Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Iraqi kurdistan[edit]

Hello PanchoS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Iraqi kurdistan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: doesn't meet WP:CSD#R3 - it's not recently created and it's not implausible. Redirects are cheap and we usually have these ones from wrong capitalisation. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • That's okay. I won't take it to a regular XfD as it is not worth it. Thanks for double-checking anyway. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Politics by continent[edit]

I have proposed several subcats of Category:Politics by continent for discussion/renaming Hugo999 (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category header education by country[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Category header education by country has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category header Islamism in[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Category header Islamism in has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category header anarchist organizations by country[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Category header anarchist organizations by country has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category header liberal parties by country[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Category header liberal parties by country has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category header libertarians by nationality[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Category header libertarians by nationality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello PanchoS! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,925 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Nikolay Bliznakov - Find sources: "Nikolay Bliznakov" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion[edit]

Proposed deletion of Young Greens of Sweden‎[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Young Greens of Sweden‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"commons=false" and related[edit]

I'm into an arcane part of Wiki here -- the alphabetical sorting of articles within categories -- that I know I don't understand well enough but where I do see problems and am trying to chip away at them. My main statement on the situation so far is here. For you, I have a narrow question.

You added an instruction here in 2010. The result of that instruction, as I see it, is to leave the subject article NOT sorted alphabetically on this Category page. My first feeling is that the "Environmentalism in the United States" category page SHOULD be listed under "E" along with the other environmental and other "E-" articles; rather than being unsorted at the beginning of the whole list on the "Environment of the United States" category page. However, you asked for no changes, in your 2010 edit; and I don't recognize the "commons=false" wording there. I wonder if could offer an opinion/update/explanation on this.

Thanks, and cheers. Swliv (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Categories by paradigm[edit]

Category:Categories by paradigm, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Verband der Wissenschaftlichen Katholischen Studentenvereine Unitas[edit]

Category:Verband der Wissenschaftlichen Katholischen Studentenvereine Unitas, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Forum Żgħażagħ Laburisti.svg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Forum Żgħażagħ Laburisti.svg. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Labour Students.svg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Labour Students.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SNCF.svg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:SNCF.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CatNationality[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:CatNationality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CatCountry[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:CatCountry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi. It's better you upload files like File:Kommunistesch Partei Letzebuerg Logo.svg at wikipedia, with a fair use template. At Commons, it is bound to be deleted at some point. --Soman (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Education in Northern America[edit]

Category:Education in Northern America, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Young Labour UK.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Young Labour UK.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. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sororities[edit]

Category:Sororities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic Union Party (Syria), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PUK. 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) 12:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ambassadors of the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |[[Netherlands]] ||[[United States Ambassador to the Netherlands|Ref]]||[[Timothy M. Broas]]||[[Embassy of the United States, The Hague|The Hague]||March 2014

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIE[edit]

Hi Pancho. I made a partial revert on the ISIE article and I'd like to explain the reason why. Although you did use the infobox template as it is intended, it unfortunately places the French name above the Arabic one. This is a shortcoming of the template itself and there really should be a way to make it more flexible. Until then, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Arabic name should come on the top as it is the primary language of the institution and the country. I also think that the transliteration is not necessary in the infobox. Let me know if you disagree. Cheers, Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I absolutely agree with you and will look into the Infobox template to solve that problem. Thanks for explaining your decision! --PanchoS (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Abderraouf Ayadi
added a link pointing to Ennahda
Republican Party of Russia – People's Freedom Party
added a link pointing to Forward Russia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abderrazak Kilani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mohamed Abbou. 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) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox political party[edit]

original version
messed up version

This is what i meant, the bars are too long apart each other Dannis243 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Dannis243: Thank you very much! I can see the problem and will try to fix it tonight! Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
you did not fix this tonight why and could you possibly do it now? Dannis243 (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
hello?!

please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PanchoS#Infobox_political_party Dannis243 (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I said, I will try to fix it tonight, but I happened to have some real life time limitations. It will take an hour or so, and I'd actually prefer taking care of the problem you brought up without someone standing behind me and reminding me twice a day. It's not like you're paying me for this work, right? --PanchoS (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arab Organization for Human Rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hammamet. 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) 09:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Wahid Institute for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Wahid Institute 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/The Wahid Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Results tables[edit]

Hi Pancho. Hope you don't mind me asking, but would you mind not removing results tables from articles and linking to templates? The results templates using electiontable are (frankly speaking) rubbish. The template was developed in the early days of Wikipedia, and is not really fit for purpose anymore, so should be avoided wherever possible. As an example, the template for Algerian presidential election, 2004 doesn't have separate columns for the candidate and party, doesn't contain the invalid/blank votes and is broken (it's missing a cell in the bottom right-hand corner). There is no need for a template when the results table is transcluded so few times. Cheers, Number 57 23:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

PS, I saw that you attempted to revert to the electiontable format at Template:Algerian presidential election, 2014, but ended up breaking the table again. Please avoid using electiontable – it's useless! Cheers, Number 57 00:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear @Number 57: Template:Electiontable is successfully used on hundreds of election result tables. Would you please go into detail what exactly you feel is "broken" about it or why it should be "avoided wherever possible", and why your non-standard CSS-fiddling workaround would be "preferable"... If you think that Template:Electiontable should be improved then feel free to throw in your proposals at Template Talk:Electiontable. Otherwise please stop reverting my edits and wasting my and your time. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Pancho. I'm sorry you think I'm wasting our time, but given that I've spend the last few years trying to bring some kind of order and consistency to election articles, I'd hope not. Yes, electiontable is used on hundreds of articles, but there are tens of thousands of election articles around, and by far the most commonly used table is the simple wikitable.
I didn't say electiontable was broken – I said the templates you were adding were broken because you didn't create the correct number of cells, so there were gaps in the table. However, I did say it was useless – its problems include:
  • Messing up header rows – as you can see in this version of the 2014 template (which also features the missing cell), there are a few problems - the column headers no longer function properly (the text is right-aligned instead of being centred) and are not the correct colour. If you want them to appear correctly, you have to add a load of extra code to the table.
  • Having overly-long heading titles – the Algerian one is an example of this, where the results table is narrower than the heading, which is then wrapped over two rows, leaving a single word on the second line – very poor from a stylistic point of view.
  • Always including the title – in many articles the template heading title is unneccesary duplication from what is in the article it's being used in – often it will be directly below the main "Results" heading, so there's no need for another heading directly afterwards (which also duplicates the name of the article).
These are just a few I can think of off the top of my head before I have to run off. However, a basic point, as I said above, is that templates simply aren't necessary for historical elections, as so few transclusions occur (often only one, on the election article itself). Number 57 11:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louisa Hanoune may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • presidential election]] she however became the first female candidate in the entire [[Arab world]]] to run for president. Only six candidates were recognized by the constitutional council.<ref name=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of First austerity package (Greece)[edit]

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 First austerity package (Greece) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Qxukhgiels (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that this may be a work in process. I suggest you draft in your userspace.Qxukhgiels (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd actually even preferred to draft in my userspace or offline. However WP:SPLIT requires to make the step of splitting an article as transparent as possible, which here unfortunately means: split first, fix second and improve afterwards. --PanchoS (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stavros Theodorakis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gypsy. 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) 09:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Democratic Socialists (Greece)[edit]

I have replied to your message on my talk page. Please check it. Thank you. Olivier (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dimitris Reppas
added a link pointing to Ministry of Transport and Communications
Economic Adjustment Programme for Cyprus
added a link pointing to Financial assistance
Economic Adjustment Programme for Ireland
added a link pointing to Financial assistance
Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal
added a link pointing to Financial assistance
First Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece
added a link pointing to Financial assistance
Greek legislative election, 2015
added a link pointing to Spiegel
Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece
added a link pointing to Financial assistance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Pegida[edit]

Information icon It may not have been your intention, but your single edit on Pegida, introduced numerous issues that some consider controversial. Due to this, I reverted it. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first check the article's talk page, since the exact some of the issue had been brought up and a consensus has been established. If you think the issues should be discussed more, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • My edit touches a single remotely controversial aspect, namely the question of the "trigger" of Pegida, which was discussed on the talk page earlier but abandoned without consensus. A number of sources however unanimously state that the Kurdish demonstration was the initial event leading Bachmann to take action. We're not responsible for smoothing Bachmann's contradictory ressentiments against both Islamists and the Kurdish forces fighting them. We can only document analyses of others. --PanchoS (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't convinced that "Pegida" is more common than "PEGIDA". Therefore, it was moved back. You can request a move. --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, George Ho, but about this minor aspect – all caps or not – I don't really care... ;-) Both variants work, IMHO. --PanchoS (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pegida participants in Dresden[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Pegida participants in Dresden has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NSH002 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I am not actually sure what is the best thing to do with this. What is the objection to having it as part of the PEGIDA article? I have moved it to user:PanchoS/Pegida. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Whatever we might consider "the best thing to do" with the table, your decision to userfy it is the worst possible resolution and not backed by any of the voices raised in the discussion. All I can do is move it back, because there is absolutely no point in userfying content that uncontroversially belongs to the article. If you ask me, that is "very bad practice". --PanchoS (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I subst it now, so all should be fine now. --PanchoS (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Faculty by university or college in the United Kingdom[edit]

Category:Faculty by university or college in the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. BencherliteTalk 00:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

TfD: Infobox military operation[edit]

You made a proposal on 16 Jan. I asked some questions on 17 Jan. You haven't replied yet. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the reminder. However, your questions are rather to be discussed on the template's talk page. --PanchoS (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
a) Yes, that was indeed the point of my reminder. b) Thanks for opening this issue. Sadly, I'm not a template expert - do you have the skills/knowledge to make the necessary changes? If so, great! If not, how do we move forward? Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bodo Ramelow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A token of recognition[edit]

BoNM-Greece.PNG The Barnstar of WikiProject Greece
Thank you for your constant and tireless work on articles relating to the Greek government and politics. Your contributions are invaluable to the coverage of contemporary Greece. Keep it up! Constantine 11:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your article Centro Panamericano de Investigación e Innovación[edit]

Information icon Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Centro Panamericano de Investigación e Innovación to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. DThomsen8 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, @Dthomsen8: for your notice. However my 2009 stub was written in English. It obviously has been expanded by someone else in Spanish language. Hopefully, someone tales it up and translates it to English. I'm currently involved in some other projects, so I unfortunately can't help. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Antonio Navarro (fencer)[edit]

Hello PanchoS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Antonio Navarro (fencer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The redirect is not broken. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vassilis Ephremidis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Left Unity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yassine Brahim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manager (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Privatization in Germany[edit]

Information.svg

Category:Privatization in Germany has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GermanJoe (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Plaka Bridge[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dora Heyenn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Left (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

precision categories
Thank you, Pancho, veteran user in European languages, for precision categories such as Category:Sports venues in Attica, for gnomish moves and categorizing with respect to the hierarchy, for template redesign, for starting topics, for collaboration as on Plaka Bridge, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1132 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Motorway 5 (Greece), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pyrgos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A revert[edit]

Sorry about this, the click went to the rollback tool by mistake. I just wanted to revert this as Kallithea isn't really a defining characteristic of EAM. Cheers, and keep up the good work. Constantine 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem, @Cplakidas: I happened to read in another article that EAM was founded in Kallithea. And then I was happy to have one more article for Category:Kallithea. But yes, you are probably right: it's probably not really a defining characteristic. And even though additional research might bring up more insight, there is so much more to do that I will probably just move on... Cheers, --PanchoS (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ecologista Verde (Chile).png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ecologista Verde (Chile).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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thessaloniki–Bitola railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monastir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Category moves[edit]

Can you slow down with the category moves please? You may or may not know that moving a category does not recategorise the articles therein. So you will need to update all those articles as well. Can do you this for all the categories you have moved today? In future it may be safer to use WP:CFD. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey @MSGJ: last time I used WP:CFD for an unanimous per-main-article move, I was asked not to bother and do it right away. Don't worry though, I'm experienced enough to know how all categorized articles are subsequently moved by a bot, and will work through the tree on a systematic way, so by tomorrow it will be all fine again. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? Can you tell me which bot will do this work for you? I trust you to fix all this up, but I'm a little worried about the amount of work you are creating. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I just checked my logs and it's RussBot doing that work every morning at 9:15 AM. I expected it to be perfectly okay to rely on RussBot's work, but if it's not, I will happily return to nominating categories, which is less work for me. I'll however finish what I started now, because a half-finished moving of the category tree is certainly worse. --PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay then, hopefully everything will be sorted at 09:15 tomorrow :) Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Kallikratis Plan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Window of opportunity and Stakeholder
Kentriki Ellada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece
NUTS of Greece (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece
Nisia Aigaiou, Kriti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece
Voreia Ellada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexandroupoli–Svilengrad railway[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Alexandroupoli–Svilengrad railway, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Thessaloniki–Svilengrad railway. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexandroupoli railway stations[edit]

Hi, I saw your recent edits about the Alexandroupoli railway station, and I'm not sure what you wrote is correct. As far as I can see from old and new timetables (see this one from 2012 or 2013 and the recent online ticket booth, try selecting trains that run from Alexandroupoli, Kirki or Ferres), there used to be 2 railway stations in Alexandroupoli: one at the port (Limin), and one (probably) at the junction with the line to Thessaloniki (Kentr.). I think the latter one is the one referred to as "old French railway station" here, and that this station is closed now. The coordinates given in the Alexandroupoli railway station article refer to another building between these two, that looks more like a freight loading station. I think what the Greek railways refer to as "Alexandroupoli station" now is the former "port" station, which is probably the most interesting station to write an article about. What do you think? Markussep Talk 14:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Hi guys, sorry to intervene but the station referred to as Alexandroupoli currently is the "old" one, not the port one. Both are in use however and all trains stop to both of them.--Auslaender (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cabinet of George Papandreou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodoros Pangalos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rena Dourou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Dawn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:For-profit schools[edit]

Category:For-profit schools, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Paul_012 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Health Fields[edit]

the category Health Fields does not describe the categories it contains - and they don't have much in common. I've proposed it for deletion. Until that question is decided, what is your objection to using both that and the main health category?Rathfelder (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • As I said on your talk page: you are experienced enough to know that you have to nominate a category for deletion (and merging up of the content) if you deem it incorrect or useless. Double categorizations usually are detrimental to the whole categorization system.
    Nominate the category and then wait upon the decision. If the nominated category gets deleted, the contents will be merged up and you will be happy. If not, then we'd stick with your unhelpful double categorizations. --PanchoS (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

NBRC[edit]

the stubs you have just restored, in each case contained just one sentence which did not appear in the main article. The individual qualifications don't merit an article.Rathfelder (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amyntaio Power Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Decentralized administrations[edit]

Hello! Since you began working on these articles, I don't know if you can read Greek, but this article and this should be of interest.. In short, the Syriza government had stated right after its election that they would be abolished, and their powers transferred to the elected regional governors. Apparently this will take some time, as there are other priorities (cough cough...), and nothing definite has been announced so far AFAIK. Right now the only difference is that, as the GenSecs are political appointees, Syriza simply did not appoint any new ones after the previous ones resigned after the election; the senior civil servants have been serving since as acting GenSecs. Constantine 21:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Cplakidas: Hey, and thanks, that's indeed interesting to know. I picked up something like this, but wasn't sure, so I concentrated on the basic administrative structure. Reading the two articles you pointed me to, I might not have put efforts into creating articles on Decentralized Administrations at all. But then again, it wasn't all too much work and it bothered me so long they didn't exist.
    However it's surprising to see that Syriza plans to further strengthen the regions, as Nea Dimokratia controls most of them... They seem to be serious about changing the game - if, and of course only if they get the time they need and are not strangled by our friends Schäuble & Merkel... Cheers, --PanchoS (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed we shall see. Re "changing the game", from your mouth to Tsipras' ear. Don't get your hopes up, though... Constantine 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi back![edit]

Hello PanchoS! Es tut mir leid but my German is not really up to conversation level yet. I'd be very happy to help you with any questions you may have about Greek politics or any other part of Greece. Thankfully the level of my Greek is much superior to that of my German {{{1}}}.--Auslaender (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Decentralized Administration of Attica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece
Decentralized Administration of Crete (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece
Decentralized Administration of Epirus and Western Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece
Decentralized Administration of Macedonia and Thrace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece
Decentralized Administration of Peloponnese, Western Greece and the Ionian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece
Decentralized Administration of Thessaly and Central Greece (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece
Decentralized Administration of the Aegean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Streets in Attica[edit]

Category:Streets in Attica, which you created, has been nominated for upmerging to :Category:Roads in Attica. 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.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing the Greek local elections, 2014 article[edit]

Seriously. Have a great day. --4idaho (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United June Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peoples' Democratic Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Heinrich[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Michael Heinrich has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Democratic Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Perry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Wafd Party may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ; {{lang-ar-at|حزب الوفد الجديد|Ḥizb Al-Wafd Al-Jadīd}}), also known as the '''Al-Wafd Party''') is a [[National liberalism|nationalist liberal]]<ref name="Jazeera:Brotherhood"/> [[List of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ariha District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ariha
Nawshirwan Mustafa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Komala
Pegida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

De-Ba'athification[edit]

You left several reference problems in your cleanup. Could you please fix them. Bgwhite (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Two minor issues were introduced by me while slightly expanding the article. The rest preexisted. Thanks for both your notice and the fixes, though. I might continue to work on the article which previously wasn't in a very good shape. PanchoS (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Accountability and Justice Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reconciliation
De-Ba'athification (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reconciliation
European Council on Refugees and Exiles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Caritas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Popular Democratic Union[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Popular Democratic Union has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary disambiguation page with 1 redlink.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Al-Manajir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ras al-Ayn
List of Kurdish-language television channels (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to TV 10

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi PanchoS, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

November 2015 Sinjar offensive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to AFP
Sinjar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to AFP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown[edit]

Please don't just remove content that is legitimate and reliably sourced and please don't restore content that is totally irrelevant to the current event.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Are you kidding me? The opposite is the case: you deleted legitimate and reliably sourced content. PanchoS (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I restored my edit and removed the Hatay section. Can you please explain the relevance of the history of Hatay to this current event?--58.106.229.229 (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Tell me, what was your edit about, apart from removing relevant and sourced material? I can't remember you contributed to the article at all. PanchoS (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The relevant discussion has moved to the article's talk page.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Erol Dora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Status quo ante
International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Communist Party (Turkey)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ansar al-Sharia (Syria) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Aleppo Province
Antalya Conference for Change in Syria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conference
Euphrates Volcano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Aleppo Province
Fatah Halab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Aleppo Province
Nahiya Azaz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Salama

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Akyavaş, Engel & Kooistra after release.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Akyavaş, Engel & Kooistra after release.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Archives Service Center, University Library System, University of Pittsburgh[edit]

This article has been renamed to its more descriptive and accurate title. You will find it now if you do a search. The references also contain the name of the archives and the references describe the distinction between the Archives and the rest of the Pitt library system. The secondary sources specifically mention this part of the library as a separate entity. An article for the University of Pittsburgh Library System will be drafted, then this article may be able to be merged with this future article about the libraries at Pitt, but until then, news coverage supports the treatment of this topic separately from the rest of the Library system. Please retain this article under its current and correct name. Best Regards,:Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

NBC News team kidnapping in Syria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Vanity Fair
Newseum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Carr
Richard Engel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The anti-Kurdish 81.62... editor[edit]

He is back, has been editing under two accounts and one IP yesterday and under another IP today: Lrednuas Senoroc Temp (talk · contribs) (continuing a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish mythology, started under the previous name and collapsing all parts of that discussion highlighting his behaviour and block), 81.62.64.174 (talk · contribs), 81.62.246.169 (talk · contribs), and Hassan Rebell (talk · contribs).

I have started to look at whatever databases I have access to for anything on Kurdish literature etc, but I don't know any Kurdish, and the various dialects and methods of transcriptions make it somewhat difficult even with sources in English or other European languages.

Either way, I can't keep up with the pace and dedication of this person, whatever we are supposed to call him. Judging by his knowledge of Wikipedia formatting, he must have been around for more than the last few weeks and may well have had previous accounts. (Many Swiss IPs begin with 81.62, so it is difficult to go by that alone.) --Hegvald (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Hey Hegvald. apologies for answering so late, but in a way I bore a deep unwillingness in getting involved with Hassan's unnerving posture. However, I might have helped ending his prodding spree by adding a reference to Cankurd that he couldn't ignore. And now I finally brought myself to answering on his block review request, and hopefully found some apt and measured remarks. Personally I suspect, he might be identical with Heysem, but I really think he should get away with a time limited ban, so I won't ask a checkuser. Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of YPG dab[edit]

Notice of deletion request, that YPG (disambiguation) be deleted per G6 (a redirect holding up a consensual move). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terna Energy (Greek company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

France[edit]

This was not out-of-process. It was discussed. Indeed, the so-called "Political system of France" was located at Government of France. That content needed to be transferred away from Government of France to allow Cabinet of France to be moved to Government of France. Likewise, the original Politics of France was moved to Political history of France, so as to align that article with other similar "politics of" articles, so as to allow the non-standard "Political system of France" to move to Politics of France. Please do not make a mess here. I know it is confusing, but that's how it happened. We had planned to history merge the articles so that the mess would've been completely resolved, but software limitations prevented that. I am pinging Anthony Appleyard, who closed the move discussion. RGloucester 22:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • See your talk page for my remarks on your WP:BOLD edits, which were both consensus-wise and technically out-of-process. --PanchoS (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Hello. Could I ask why you're removing important categories such as from the Category:Kurdistan, Category:Kurdish people etc pages? This ethnic group is amongst the native ethnicities of these 4 nations, and their homeland most importantly, is divided amongst these four nations specifically. They, the Kurds, are stateless. Such categories are therefore important to have. The same goes btw for the Assyrians (another stateless ethnic group in the ME divided amongst these four). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Osama al-Nujaifi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asia News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:User talk:Magnus Manske#Delete_my_picture[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Commons:User talk:Magnus Manske#Delete_my_picture. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I'm not interested in an edit war and filed a WP:THIRDOPINION request to solve our content dispute. --PanchoS (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:3O[edit]

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place to ensure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that they can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "They think this source is unreliable", but rather write "Disagreement about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you.Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your information, Godsy. I noticed you declined the request as the dispute involving three rather than two editors. Sorry for not having read the instructions good enough – it's the first time I'm taking a content dispute to thrid party resolution in all my years at Wikipedia. I'm taking it to the Dispute resolution noticeboard instead. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1RR on Gamergate controversy[edit]

Just a head's up: ArbCom has imposed a 1RR on Gamergate controversy which you passed with this edit. Woodroar (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Thanks for notifying me. I frankly didn't expect 1RR to apply for restoring a cleanup tag while discussion on the Talk page continues. No nitpicking intended, but IMHO, this is what the rule is all about: to avoid editwarring by placing appropriate cleanup tags and discussing on the Talk page. Now the badge has been removed again, but I guess I'd better leave the whole poisoned terrain. It's just not worth it. --PanchoS (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox political party[edit]

The edit you made to this template yesterday broke the syntax. Lots of flags were removed from their party articles (see Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 10 January 2016). I have reverted your edit in its entirety as I can't find out exactly where your error was. You might wish to try to re-implement some of your changes. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Stefan2 for bringing this problem to my attention! I found and fixed the little but consequential bug (see comparison) that caused the problems. Successfully tested with a number of articles containing a non-free flag. Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Corinthian Colleges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parks College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Universities in France by city or town[edit]

PanchoS,

I think your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 20 got cutoff. Your proposal just says "Propose renaming:" and doesn't actually lay out the changes that are hinted at in the explanation. Hope that helps!

RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Champagne-Ardenne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lorraine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to Al-Jamahir article in the refs for Aleppo articles[edit]

Hi Pancho. The link to Al-Jamahir in the ref you added to Dayr Hafir District was dead so I have changed it. However, I can't read Arabic, so I am not 100% certain that I have done the right thing. I don't know if you can read Arabic either, but maybe you can check whether I have done the right thing, before I update the link in the other 3 articles have have it. (I also unlinked Al-Jamahir, because that linked to the defunct Egyptian newspaper, not the Aleppo one.) Thanks Nurg (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:British research associations[edit]

This clearly does not fit into the central definition "This category is for associations in an informal sense, in that any non-profit group which has not incorporated may be thought of as an association." They were established by Act of Parliament.Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Vizianagaram district[edit]

PanchoS, please do not move categories without recategorizing their contents. Alternatively, you can propose a name change at Speedy renames and the bot can move the assigned articles for you. Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Liz: this was part of a cleanup effort in Category:Cities and towns in India by district. I restored consistency of that long-standing categorization scheme, which was broken yesterday by another editor, see another example. I also informed that editor about our regular processes.
Of course, I normally wouldn't rename categories without moving the content – why should I? But, as you certainly know from experience, reverting other editor's out-of-process actions before more harm is done, tends to strain one's time budget.
Now if I regularly moved categories without taking care of the contents, it would be another thing. But if this category happened to slip through once, then a slightly less lecturing notice would have been sufficient. I'm eager to learn about any other issue with my contributions you may have. For my part, I don't have any issue with you or your contributions at all. Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of high schools in Chlef Province, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages El Marsa and La Cité (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

St. Paul's Missionary College (Australia)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of St. Paul's Missionary College (Australia), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: St. Paul's Missionary College. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That multi-wiki BLP violation[edit]

All entries now nuked! Face-smile.svg Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks Mjroots. Seems like the victim names were actually fake, so constituted vandalism rather than a real BLP violation, but we had to err on the safe side. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Name of article[edit]

I was thinking of going ahead with creating that article, as there are a number of sources that can be used for this, and a fair amount to write about. I was looking at the stubs Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 and Ravenna Document, but am unsure what the article name should be here for the 2016 declaration. Maybe Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill? I originally proposed Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 2016, but that would be wrong as Kirill was only representing ROC, not the whole Orthodox church as in the 1965 declaration where it was the spiritual leader of the Orthodox church (the Patriarch of Constantinople) signing the declaration. What do you think? I should be able to write a first draft over the next hour or so. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Biography Barnstar Hires.png The BLP Barnstar
Thank you for your role in cleaning up the recent BLP violations on the Bad Aibling rail accident article and for providing the list of cross-wiki diffs to be revdel'd at WP:AN. Your diligence is greatly appreciated. Keep doing what you do! Mz7 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Mz7, that's really nice of you! It seemed absolutely necessary, and while it wasn't exactly a pleasure, I'm happy we finally got this BLP-vio / vandalism problem solved. It however exposed how vulnerable we are for this kind of cross-wiki activity, so IMHO the real task is now to improve our processes so we can avoid worse incidents in the future. Thanks for your contributions, too! Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

BVS[edit]

Any chance you could work on the notability aspects of the BVS article you recently modified? MaynardClark (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @MaynardClark: Almost certainly not, sorry. I'm actually neither a Vegetarian nor particularly into related topics, just respectful and interested in improving categorization. --PanchoS (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles never have the same title[edit]

So hatnotes are required even where you may think its unique. I found a ref to Sayada in Northern Africa ... well I've found one, so this is it.... or is it? I'm not going to edit war with you but I think you have an OR view. Victuallers (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @Victuallers: I rather think you should WP:AGF and take another look at our policies. Hatnotes are only needed if the page title is ambiguous, and should otherwise be removed, see WP:NAMB. After I disambiguated the Tunisian town from its original title Sayada to Sayada, Tunisia, it is no longer ambiguous. Therefore it was correct to remove the hatnote, unless you can show me a second Sayada in Tunisia. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thx AGF is my assumption and not I suggest of your accusation. Its not usual to convert an existing article into a disambiguation page. That is why articles like Sayada (disambiguation) exist. Else why would they be created .... I still think it needs a hatnote, but I'm happy for you to work this out. Victuallers (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Foodlogo2.svg
Hello, PanchoS.

You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics.
Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 10:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Companies[edit]

In what sense are companies not business organisations?Rathfelder (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: As I already said in my edit summary: in the sense of Category:Business organizations's rationale resp. inclusion criteria. The category's scope is somewhat more specific than "Organizations related to business" would be. Maybe the category should be actually split to the more specific Category:Business associations and something roughly as all-encompassing as "Organizations related to business". But for now, including companies wouldn't make any sense and simply doesn't improve anything at all. --PanchoS (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Skeptics and :Philosophy organizations[edit]

There are half a dozen overlapping categories in this area, but none obviously suitable as an overarching category. I would like to set one up, into which could be fitted organisations by geography and so on. Do you have any thoughts about a category which could encompass all of them without provoking objections? Rationalism? Rathfelder (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Thanks for asking me, but I guess I don't really get what you are searching for.
What I easily spotted is that Category:Philosophy has a large number of overlapping and partially synonymous subcategories, including Category:Philosophical theories/Category:Philosophy by field, Category:Philosophical theories/Category:Philosophical movements/Category:Philosophical traditions, but we should be very careful in this very complex area.
I also noticed that there is Category:Philosophy organizations with Category:Skeptic organisations being a child category, so I guess I didn't really get your question at all… :/ --PanchoS (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean we have Category:Atheist organizations, Category:Humanist associations, Category:Secularist organizations, Category:Skeptic organisations, and probably others, which overlap - and also overlap into philosphy, though I that is more academic territory. I'm tempted to call them Secular or Irreligious organisations, but I'm not sure if that would do. I want a parallel structure to Category:Religious organisationsRathfelder (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Labour in Europe move[edit]

You have moved the category Category:Labour in Europe to Category:Labor in Europe, without even a WP:CFDS nom in violation of advice which states "Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors". Please revert the move and take to CFDS. AusLondonder (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @AusLondonder: See the category's history. I moved it just 30 minutes after having it created myself. I could instead have it deleted it per WP:CSD G7 to immediately recreate it, but we're WP:NOBUREAUCRACY. --PanchoS (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I apologise for that oversight on my part. I do however feel that "Labour" would be more appropriate spelling for the European category. AusLondonder (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: No reason to apologize, dude! ;-) However, I feel you would always consider everything to be more appropriate in British English spelling. European institutions, I agree, but apart from those there is quite a number of European countries with stronger ties to the U.S. resp. AE spelling. I think we should really have a catalogue of countries tending to BE vs. to AE spelling. --PanchoS (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply :) Obviously personally I use British spelling but I always respect American English spelling on articles for the US and the Philippines etc and where it already exists. I agree with you about the catalogue, that would definitely be useful. The reason I think Labour is more appropriate for the European category is that the English speaking countries in Europe are the UK and Ireland (and to some extent Malta). They all use British spelling. I realise Europe is bigger than just the EU but European institutions are clearly quite influential, especially on labour policy, and they use British spelling. Also, labor is purely an Americanism, unlike say "organization", "recognize" etc which is used by Oxford Dictionaries. The International Labour Organization name is interesting in this regard. AusLondonder (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: Interesting aspect you're mentioning. I agree we should differentiate pure Americanisms from spelling variants that are as well recognized in British English, though subordinate. If we do so, then I'll willingly admit that I personally find the spelling "labor" rather awkward and would rather see it used only for a handful of countries with strong ties to the U.S. The "z" spelling variant however seems globally dominant, so I'd rather have the "s" variant be used only for, say, a dozen of countries with strong ties to the U.K. This policy could be extended to the article mainspace as well, so we don't allow a few shades in between pure, idomatic British English and pure, idomatic American English. The Google nGram is intersting though. --PanchoS (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hashtag title[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Hashtag title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Template changes[edit]

Hello, PanchoS. I see you made extensive edits to {{Iso2country}} yesterday, which changed the interface for calling the template. Unfortunately, you did not see fit to make corresponding edits to any of the other templates that transclude this template. According to https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Iso2country&namespace=10, there are over 15,000 such transclusions in the Template: namespace! It would have been more considerate if you had at least made your changes backwards-compatible, so as not to break some of the existing uses of this template. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Russ, and thank you for both notifying me and fixing Template:Europe topic. Your complaint concerns the use of the |template= parameter for the disambiguated country of Georgia (country). Though somewhat propoerly documented, the parameter's addition obviously was a one-off hack using an obviously non-generic name, which is not what we want for generic templates such as Template:Iso2country.
While streamlining and improving the template's interface, code and documentation, I still catered for the deprecated paramter, even adding a tracking category. Indeed, you're right that I didn't ensure the backwards-compatible stop-gap solution really works for transcluding templates (Template:Asia topic should be the only one remaining), and I apologize for that.
However, I would ask you to reconsider your tone, as with your (incorrect) presumption "did not see fit" you were disregarding WP:AGF, while your lamenting "if you had at least…" doesn't sound very appreciative of a fellow contributor. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Eugene Bell Foundation[edit]

It's work is based in North Korea. There is so little information about health in N Korea I would like to leave it in that category for the time being, or the category will be deleted.Rathfelder (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Well, then let it be deleted. We can easily recreate it whenever we have any article on an organization that is actually based in North Korea. At the same time, I agree per-country categorization is quite problematic for charities registered in one country but mainly working in another.
We might want to rename Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom and Category:Health charities in the United Kingdom to to Category:Charities registered in the United Kingdom and Category:Medical and health charities registered in the United Kingdom. In the target countries we would primarily categorize by activities, such as Category:Health education in Ecuador or Category:First aid in Syria. To complement these, it might be a good idea to start a new category tree Category:Charities by country of activities, which for now I would not further subdivide by type of activities. --PanchoS (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I also wonder whether "based in" is always helpful. If the category was "Organisations in Korea" that might be clearer. But leave me North Korea for a few days while I look for more organisations to put in it.Rathfelder (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: Don't care too much about the categorization of a particular article, so feel free to gather more North Korean health organizations.
More importantly, I wonder whether the first step would be filing a general CfR for (top-categories) Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom and the likes, including a number of subcategories? At least it seems like the most thorough approach. Main argument would be that charity (or actually, charitable organisation) is a legal (tax-exempt) status bound to the legal headquarters, while the focus of an organization's activities may be in another country. --PanchoS (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Sorting through health charities they would divide happily between those that operate in their own country and those that are based in a rich country and do good in a poor country - and the same is true of NGOs generallyRathfelder (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Please do not move categories. If you want to rename a category, take it to WP:CFD and request a rename there. Moving a category has no effect on all of the articles that are categorized in the original category so it means that another editor has to come in and reassign all of these articles to a new category. Plus, CFD is how category renames are conducted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: We had this before, but while your last admonition was not much more than an annoyance, I'm increasingly getting angry. I'm asking you to be so polite and at least respond this time.
First of all, do you have any specific objection to any of my categorization edits – yes or no? If yes, then tell me, and I will take it serious. If no, then I'm asking you to stop bothering me. I'm yet to find a policy that disallows uncontroversial category renames. Furthermore, please read WP:CATRED: "Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets. Notice that it's not a redirect at all as a wiki page; it's bots that virtually make them redirects." Now, while I'm often using Cat-a-lot, I sometimes recategorize pages manually, so I can see the full context. I'm never indifferent to leaving pages in a soft-redirected category, but if it happens once in a while, then I'm asking you to leave the cleanup to the bots rather than complaining about something nobody asked you to do.
And, more generally, please stop making me (or anyone else!) a bad conscience or question their competence, if once in a while they commit minor mistakes. You have no idea how many minor mistakes I'm curing every single day I'm spending my precious time to help build this encyclopedia, without bothering others with unhelpful instructions. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that you and I are going to resolve this so I'll ping admins with more category experience (Fayenatic london, Good Olfactory, Od Mishehu) and see where they come down. If they say you are correct, I'll apologize and will never post about this issue on your talk page again. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Liz: No problem, I'm fine with that, and this time at least I got a response from you. You're however still to point me to any specific edit you're objecting to or uncomfortable with.
Otherwise, you may have come across my username from a number of reverts some weeks ago, all of them being {{Db-c1}} badges you placed on categories someone else emptied out of process – which, if controversial, I'm definitely not condoning. I could have silently removed the badges after refilling, but purposely reverted them in order to point you to suspicious patterns. You obviously weren't interested and didn't respond to my message, so now I'm again leaving it to the bots. Optimally, you'd doublecheck categories recently emptied out of process before mechanically tagging them as empty – it might indicate controversial, irreversible, and most importantly sneaky actions going on. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi; I'm not sure if my comments will be helpful or not, because I am somewhat sympathetic to both sides of this issue. It's one I've encountered many times and one that I'm kind of interested in trying to figure out a good answer to it. I'll tell you what I think, but just so you know, I don't really claim that my view is the dominant view with consensus or that I am comfortable necessarily imposing it on others as an admin.
Originally, the reason that it was expected that all category renames would be processed through CFD was because categories could not be moved—that makes sense. (However, even through the CFD process, edit histories were lost when a category was renamed—in the case of a rename, the old category was just deleted and the new one created.) But, in any case, we discouraged users from carrying this out themselves manually without going through CFD.
Now, of course, all of that has changed—it's easy to move categories and edit summaries are retained. So one of my inclinations is to suggest that the same basic principles should now apply to category moving as apply to article moving, as set out in Wikipedia:Requested moves. The basic idea is that you can be bold and make a move without discussion, but that you should not if the change "may be subject to dispute".
This statement of explicit permission has not been copied to WP:CFD. In fact, it doesn't say much about this issue either way—it doesn't say you have to use CFD for all category renames, but it also doesn't say that users have a discretion to not use it for uncontroversial changes.
As far as user attitudes go, I know that there are some users that feel very strongly that any renaming of a category outside of CFD is disruptive and should not be allowed. This is a relatively popular view, I think, among users that frequently participate in CFD discussions. On the other hand, there are users that believe as PanchoS does, that as long as the changes being made are non-controversial, there shouldn't be a problem with it: WP:BURO, and all that.
Personally, I try to split the baby. I don't have a big problem with users renaming categories outside of CFD, but I generally attach three caveats to my opinion. Caveat #1: the user had better be quite sure that there is no way that any other user could object to the change, and in cases where there is any doubt, CFD should be used. I think that this is a pretty high bar. It never ceases to amaze me how things that I think are uncontroversial on Wikipedia end up causing controversy for some user or users. Caveat #2: if users are wanting to change a lot of categories—an entire tree, for instance—they should use CFD. Otherwise, the sheer number of category moves will result in a high risk that someone will say that the behavior is disruptive. Caveat #3: I think that users should have to ensure that the articles in the old category are moved to the new category in a timely fashion. I know there are bots that are tasked to do this, but from what I have seen, they are relatively slow and the transfer can sometimes take days. If a category has more articles in it than a user is comfortable manually moving immediately, I just suggest that they use WP:CFDS—it will sit there for 48 hours, and then be processed by a bot.
As I said—perhaps not terribly helpful one way or the other, but do keep in mind that my view may not be typical. In this particular situation, I would be OK with most of PanchoS's category moves being done outside of CFD (I admit I haven't looked at all of them), but I would also suggest that he move the articles himself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Good Olfactory and Liz: Thanks for your comprehensive feedback! Basically I'd imply, if a functionality is available to non-admin users and there's no policy generally prohibiting its use, then it is obviously at the user's discretion to make reasonable use of the functionality.
Now, what is reasonable here, and what isn't? Unexplained, obviously controversial or systematic category renames will never be reasonably at a user's discretion. On the other hand, "No way that any other user could object to the change" is still too high a bar, IMHO. As you said, sometimes people surprisingly object to any kind of edit one couldn't imagine was controversial. We'd need to figure out something in between.
Let's first take a look at the reasons why the bar should not be set too high. First of all, WP:CFD is overburdened and slow. If people are required to use CFD for every single category rename, even in areas obviously neglected for years, they might rather leave them alone, as it might not be worth the hassle. Category:Feminism in the People's Republic of China wouldn't be brought into line with its parent categories for another few years. Would that be a huge problem? No, of course not. But then again, if too many categories fall out of the naming convention, this will harm not just our categorization scheme, but might also affect article namespace.
Now some slightly more controversial examples, clearly not WP:CFD/S: I renamed Category:International schools in Bonn to Category:International schools in North Rhine–Westphalia on the basis of expanding scope of WP:SMALLCATs that also didn't continuously cover the territory. A few weeks earlier I renamed Category:High schools in Sălaj County to Category:Schools in Sălaj County on the basis of expanding scope of WP:NARROWCATs that also didn't continuously cover the topic (schools). If this led to the categories being removed from established parent categories, such as Category:International schools by city or Category:High schools by country subdivision, that might indeed be too controversial to decide at my own discretion, but here this wasn't the case. The alternative would have been to create the larger category level, and then possibly nominate the child categories at WP:CFD. We can go down this road, but it might lead to even more CfD nominations, or worse: to additional category levels being created without getting rid of the preexisting ones. If the hurdles for creating vs. renaming categories are all too disparate, then more categories will be created than renamed. To counter that, speedy rename and bulk rename nominations should at least be added to Twinkle.
Finally, from my general experience, we don't have terribly many problems with disruptive category renames, so it simply doesn't seem to be a problem. Being almost untracked, there is way more disruptive activity going on by out-of-process emptying of categories, which is way more sneaky and way harder to discover, challenge and revert. If we need more security against disruptive activity in categorization, then we need to improve on our processes to avoid categories being silently and slowly orphaned to the point of falling empty and getting deleted. Indeed, this is a real problem. --PanchoS (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that my caveat #1 would probably be too high a bar to impose on others if we were to formalize some sort of standard. What I was getting at is that in the absence of clarity as to what is allowed, and with the knowledge that there are a number of users that are sensitive about any category renames outside of CFD, it would be the most prudent or defensible course—if you adhered to that caveat, any complaint about you doing it out of process would be relatively pedantic. I also agree that CFD is relatively slow and under administrated. Another option (perhaps a compromise between those who oppose everything out of process and those who see problems with that approach) could be to loosen up the manner in which CFD-speedy is administered; I think you're familiar with my recent rantings about this. Finally, I agree that this is not a huge problem. I run across category moves relatively frequently, but it's rare that I see one that strikes me as problematic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that Good Olfactory's caveat #1 is a big problem - you never know what issues may come up at a cfr-speedy, but at least you're giving them a chance to express them. If you just go and rename a category out-of-process, then you're not giving them that chance - and we son't need category-rename-wars. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
An example of something that would meet the high threshold of caveat #1 would be an unpluralized category that is clearly a set category. It's only problematic insofar as one chooses to stretch it, but as I wrote it, the bar is high. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I occasionally come across non-admin category moves that have done no harm or are of positive benefit, but more often they are done by inexperienced users who are inadvertently leaving a mess or creating more work than they realise, e.g.
  1. doing many moves manually, when they could be automated by a bot, which would leave a link in the edit summaries to the relevant discussion. If you use Cat-a-lot, or leave the pages in a redirected category for a bot to move within a few days, it is not much work for you, but the edit summary on each member page does not provide any justification for the move.
  2. moving category pages by copy and paste, leaving behind incorrect inter-wiki links at Wikidata, and leaving stranded talk pages
  3. not updating incoming links to the old category
  4. not updating templates on the moved pages.
There is also the danger of making well-intentioned moves that inadvertently transgress some policy or established precedent. CFD gives a good-enough chance for this to come to light.
AFAIK there is currently no tool to reverse a set of contribs e.g. category changes that were later found to be wrong. (There are a couple of current sections at WP:Bot requests asking for this, with no response.)
I therefore remain of the view that it is better to follow WP:CFD. I would request all experienced users to do this rather than make out-of-process moves. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Winter in Czechoslovakia has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Winter in Czechoslovakia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. giso6150 (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello, Pancho! Could you please clarify something for me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Ma'mura? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Františka Plamínková[edit]

THANK YOU! I had guests in over the weekend and wanted to get her article posted. I was hoping that someone more familiar with Czech politics would help, and there you were. I believe I have addressed most of your concerns, though I could find no documents linking her to policies of Beneš. I also was finally able to find a source which confirmed her Jewish heritage, which I had only suspected and a couple of sources about her journalistic endeavors. I do intend to nominate her for GA, so if there is anything else you think needs adjusted or addressed, please let me know, or just feel free to add it. SusunW (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: obviously you're the one to be thanked for creating that article. I just added a few quick fixes. Note that I'm generally a bit hesitant pushing semi-orphan articles to GA, while the whole historic context remains deplorably underexposed. We have no article on Feminism, Women's rights or at least Women in Czechoslovakia, only a very lacking Women in the Czech Republic. Furthermore, there are no specific articles on the Committee for Women's Suffrage or the Women's National Council, not even on the National Assembly of the First Czechoslovak Republic or Politics of Czechoslovakia. At the same time articles on the Czech Socialist Party, on the 1920, 1925, 1929 and 1935 elections are still very lacking, even the article on the First Czechoslovak Republic doesn't give any real insight in the period's political culture. There's also no coverage at all of Czech feminism on Women's suffrage or somewhere. So I really think, creating and improving them has to come first so we can put Plamínková's historical role into a meaningful context.
Now, I don't know how much time you'd like to devote on that topic, but in case you would take on some of the articles, I'm happy to help you with it. For the period's feminism and political culture, the Feinberg book should be a good starting point. For my part, I might start with starting National Assembly of the First Czechoslovak Republic and Politics of Czechoslovakia. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It has been my experience that articles on women rarely "incorporate well" into the encyclopedia. Especially if they are not from a predominantly English-speaking country, but even that fails in places like the Caribbean. I mostly write about women from Latin America, the Caribbean, and non-English speaking Europe, thus one would never be able to nominate any of them for GA if they had to have all the historic context adequately covered. I am going to go ahead an nominate her for DYK. After Women's Month is over, I will be glad to tackle the red links on women-related topics, but I don't know enough about the politics to ensure that the article is correct. Politics in general is divisive and often ends up in edit warring situations, which I will not participate in. Incorporating Czech women into the main article on Women's suffrage will be a start and I can probably work that in this month between bios. :) It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Articles, IMO are always better for collaboration. SusunW (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW: My problem with furthering isolated articles to GA is less that those articles wouldn't "fit well" into the encyclopedia. Their lack of encyclopedic context means there's few settled knowledge to build upon; definitions and translations are one-off, and usually drawn from a single source that may or may not be authoritative; controversial issues have not been discussed and settled; contextual statements remain contestable and quite hard to verify. Even with so many sources being cited, I'm sorry to say the Plamínková article is still miles away from GA status, with a number of vague or even questionable statements remaining, and with quite relevant, major aspects missing. More generally, it might indeed be nearly impossible – or at best requiring specific expertise – to write a "good" article without building upon encyclopedically well established context.
For my part, while I care less about advancing specific articles to GA status than about furthering a topic's larger context to basic C-class level, of course I do understand and respect alternate approaches. As I happened to dig into the article's literature I might now stick to that topic for a while, currently thinking about how to best frame and name an article on the Czech feminist movement. So thanks for your inspiration! :) Certainly we'll find further opportunities to cooperate on European feminism topics... Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely understand your view. It is difficult when the stories of 1/2 the world are eliminated to fully understand any event, IMO. I do not for a minute believe that 1/2 the articles on WP will ever be reflective of women, that would be a misrepresentation of history, since they were barred from so many aspects of civic and political life. But if we are ever going to get a full picture of historic events, we have to include a more balanced view of events that shaped our world. I'm not married to taking any article to GA status, but think we have to do a better job than stubs at writing women and minorities back into the mosaic. Yay on the Czech Feminist movement article! If I can help in any way, please advise. SusunW (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW: Very true, sadly. Now, having read this misogynic blog post and considering this might be a not so unrepresentative opinion in the context of the recent paleoconservative turn throughout Eastern Europe, I'm very sure I will stick to that topic for quite a while... feel free to ping me just as well whenever you need help or another opinion on an article in this area. --PanchoS (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
We so do not live in a bubble. The rant could just as easily have been written by someone from the US or here in Mexico. *sigh* Interestingly, the writer clearly has access to some sources I did not, as there are details there: creation of kindergartens, chairperson of the Female National Council, her relationships with Milada Horáková (which I found bits about but not enough to understand it). On the other hand, "one of tens of thousands of non-Jewish Czechs who were murdered by the Nazis" I am fairly certain is incorrect. But, as the writer said, the coverage of Eastern Europe on English wikipedia is insufficient with huge gaps. Chipping away, one article at a time, we hope for improvement. :) Do you have a MUSE account? Biographical Dictionary of Women’s Movements and Feminisms: Central, Eastern, and South Eastern Europe, 19th and 20th Centuries is available in its entirety on Muse and has data on 150 Eastern European women. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Františka Plamínková has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Template errors[edit]

Your changes to the Pan Am Games templates have introduced a lot of errors, where there were none before:

A lot of "at the 1991 undefined year" and such. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Wbm1058: Fixed now, thanks for notifying me! While I tested the outcome on quite a number of pages, throwing error messages proved a good idea to hunt down the stupid little mistake I missed. --PanchoS (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Metro Rail Move[edit]

Hey Pancho,

I just wanted to let you know that the LACMTA is a county-wide agency, and has nothing to do with the city of LA. It is part of LA County. LA City's transit agency is DASH.--TJH2018 talk 01:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 revert[edit]

All articles should then lead to the category:Category:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries by state then. So hopefully, you and others can create articles for all the states then. Then we can link them and make them consistent. Also, it looks like the Republican page will need work as well. They all have "Pres. election in..." pages as well. So hopefully you and others can start on the Republican page. Don't get me wrong, I admire the hard work you and others bring. But I think it's more important to keep the consistency than the most relevant article. That's why I propose leaving the articles at "Pres. election in..." until you finish all your work along with others. We should also be consistent with the Republican page as well, and start there also so all the links between our two pages and the pages themselves can be on the same level of the same category. Feel free to respond back. Nike4564 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nike4564: There's always quite a lot of work to do, but we should clearly point readers to where the best information is, and we should point contributors to where their contribution is most helpful. If we'd always wait until everything is finished, then we would be stuck forever.
So while consistency is a good thing to have, forcing readers to click their way through more articles than necessary is not good. While I'm prepared to work my way through all Dems primaries, someone else will have to do the Republican primaries. Also note that the "Pres. election in..." articles will be put on the spotlight again at a later point, when the primaries are over. So don't worry, by election day, almost certainly everything will be basically covered. My two cents on this, but feel free to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@PanchoS: Okay, I see your point now and agree with you. You can continue working your way through the articles and linking them even if they are not consistent. I also think that you are right to say that everything will be covered by election day. My only worry is how we will prepare both the Democratic and Republican articles for retrospective viewing like the previous articles once the events are over. But that's another topic for another day! Thanks and have a great day! Nike4564 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Nike4564: "how we prepare both the Democratic and Republican articles for retrospective viewing"? I'm not quite sure I'm getting it, but please elaborate, it might be yet another perspective on all of this. Sorry if I possibly got a bit peeved – these primaries are just loads of work. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@PanchoS: Never mind about it, that is an issue for later. Just sit back and we'll watch what will unfold in the primaries! Nike4564 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Nike4564: I'm done with the most basic stuff for all past Dems primaries and those scheduled for next week. Before I proceed with those beyond next week, I might turn to the Republican primaries, so they're up to date by Tuesday. --PanchoS (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@PanchoS: That will be greatly appreciated, thanks! I'm sure you will probably need to start negotiating with the users there and notify them. I wish I could help you, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and don't know a lot of the "complex stuff". I'm not interested either in knowing the complex stuff and will continue to "learn as I go", so I hope you can find someone who could help you as there are still a lot of contests left! One question, I noticed that you used an old picture of Hillary, I thought it had to be the same as the main article, so I am wondering about this and hopefully you can respond. Otherwise, your hard work is always appreciated! Nike4564 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Františka Plamínková[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks RE:Turkey[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the categories related to terrorism in Turkey! I noticed that they were inconsistent the other week, but I didn't have the time to fix them myself. --π! 17:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from hashtag[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:R from hashtag has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a form of racism[edit]

Please stop removing racism categories from antisemitism categories. Antisemitism is a form of racism. Millions of Jews have suffered and died because of antisemitic racism, so I'm not understanding your bizarre insistence on removing all racism categories from antisemitism categories. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bohemian Baltimore: I think you're completely mistaking me here. WP:AGF is not a matter of politeness only, but of understanding, and it is outright horrible that – by assuming bad faith – you're telling me these things. If my answer is long, this is because your reproach of a supposed "bizarre insistence" is harsh and incorrect, and to settle this dispute – part of which obviously is a misunderstanding.
For the records, of course I'm not saying antisemitism is any less despicable, less significant or less murderous – in the contrary, as the Shoah unmistakably showed us and as Jew-hatred continues to show us every day. I'm just stating that it is a distinct form of bigotry, worth being listed separately rather than being subsumed under racism.
Apart from its undeniable racist component, you'll have to acknowledge that antisemitism always had and still has a myriad of century-old sources besides racial antisemitism, which was championed by the Nazis. Walter Zwi Bacharach (he) wrote: "It was Hitler who linked Jew-hatred with racism," but insists that we still "clearly distinguish between general Nazi racism and Nazi anti-Jewish racism." In the same article, he also says "It must not be forgotten that every significant ideology of the 19th century had its own brand of antisemitism." (Bacharach: Antisemitism and Racism in Nazi Ideology). In a highly relevant handbook on antisemitism, Jerome A. Chanes writes: "Although Antisemitism is related to racism, distinctions […] ought to be noted. […] The world of antisemitism represents deeper, more profound, more irrational antipathy. […] Antisemitism in its modern form clearly has racialist elements, but a distinction between antisemitism and classic racist expression ought be borne." (Jerome A. Chanes: Antisemitism: A Reference Handbook).
Now in his article "Between Jew-Hatred and Racism", Moshe Zimmermann goes much deeper into the details and the history of the relation between the two. Indeed George Mosse's statement (p. 45) can only be interpreted as antisemitism being undoubtedly racist, and Zimmermann's analysis of racist antisemitism way before 1879 (p. 48), based on the broad definition of antisemitism he discussed earlier in that article, also tends to support your position.
IMHO it is clearly established that antisemitism is an complex and distinct enough form of discrimination not to be completely subsumed under racism. Apart from that, the question needs much deeper consideration than I can provide here. As, in the end, we're talking of a rather limited practical problem here, for now my proposal would be to consistently categorize Category:Antisemitism both under Category:Racism and, separately, under the parent category of the two, such as Category:Discrimination. If you are okay with this compromise, we shouls be able to consider this issue settled. Otherwise we would have to take it to Talk:Antisemitism. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I came off harsh or accusatory. I reacted too quickly. I apologize for that. I disagree with that claim that "It was Hitler who linked Jew-hatred with racism", given that there were antisemitic statutes in Spain regulating "purity of blood" centuries before the rise of German Nazism. The earliest "blood purity" statute that I'm aware of was in 1449 in Toledo, 421 years before the establishment of the Nazi Party. Remnants of these racial antisemitic policies lasted for centuries, even into the 1960s in Majorca. Jorge Luis Borges referenced this history in his essay "Yo, Judío", after Argentine Nazis accused him of being secretly Jewish, by pointing out that Argentine Nazis of "pure" Spanish blood could very well have converso ancestry from centuries ago. And of course there was racial antisemitism in Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe long before Hitler; Wilhelm Marr and the League of Antisemites were advocating a racial form of antisemitism during the 1870s, who in turn were likely influenced by Arthur de Gobineau's "scientific racist" writings in the 1850s. So, yes, I was taken aback when I saw you removing the "racism" categories from "antisemitism" categories, given that in my view racism has been deeply intertwined with antisemitism for hundreds of years. However, I mistakenly assumed you were removing them because you didn't believe or didn't know that antisemitism can be and often is a form of racism (many people don't), an incorrect assumption on my part and one that I apologize for. Your idea of adding both categories for "racism" and "discrimination" for antisemitism categories is a good compromise, I am willing to support that. I would also support creating categories for "Religious discrimination" and having antisemitism categories be categorized under both "Racism" and "Religious discrimination" categories. I just added the "Discrimination in the United States" category to the "Islamophobia in the United States" category, but there is no category for religious discrimination in the US that would include antisemitism, Islamophobia, etc. I think that might be a good category scheme to look into. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Best wishes and have a nice day/night. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Bohemian Baltimore: Thank you for your weighted and informative reponse! Part of your anger might have been rooted in the prevalent but IMHO awfully wrong notion that whatever isn't racism, is more forgivable than racism. And while that's disputable, we have to take it into account, so we don't help the Jew-haters ease their conscience. Apart from that, while my aim was untangling antisemitism from being subsumed as just another form of plain old racism, I fully agree with you that antisemitism is so deeply intertwined with racism that fully decoupling the two would be even more wrong. So I'm not just absolutely fine with that compromise, but think that it clearly is the best approach.
Re your proposal: The Category:Religious discrimination categories you're proposing seem to be a good thing to do in the long term. In the meantime, I think we have to work out a more authoritative rationale for distinguishing Category:Islamophobia from Category:Opposition to Islam by country or region. While the latter often presents itself as a legitimate reaction on political Islam (a.k.a. Islamism) or a criticism of Islamic societies, it may or may not be legitimate criticism. Often hard to tell apart, it is regularly used in order to whitewash plain old white supremacy, cultural racism, and irrational Islamophobia. Furthermore, antisemitism is still more than "just" racism and antijudaism, so even if there was a category tree Category:Religious discrimination, we'd still need to have Category:Antisemitism in Category:Discrimination. So for now, I think I'll better leave the scheme as is, and turn towards making it more consistently applied. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your 45 history-merge requests[edit]

@Anthony Appleyard: OK, done. Washington Republican caucuses, 2012 is now restored to the last version before GoldRingChip renamed and repurposed the article. At the same time, I shortened United States presidential election in Washington (state), 2012#Republican caucus to only contain the most relevant information and results, instead referring to the more specific, main article on the Republican caucus. All that's missing there is the page history.
Now while that's the intended result for all the other 45 44 articles, too, I intentionally didn't copy over the other article's last versions right ahead, as it would only result in a more complicated page history. The preferred way would IMHO be:
  1. Delete redirect Nebraska Republican primary, 2012 (admin's task)
  2. Split page history of United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2012 (or clone it altogether) to Nebraska Republican primary, 2012 (admin's task)
  3. Shorten United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2012#Republican primary, instead referring to more specific, main article on the Republican caucuses (my task)
  4. Fix and update Nebraska Republican primary, 2012 (my task)
How do you think about this approach? --PanchoS (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "might be cloning the whole article": sorry, a Wikipedia article's history cannot be duplicated; each edit remains one edit, and can be currently visible ("undeleted") or hidden except to admins ("deleted"). It is against Wikipedia policy to split an edit history if there is no clear sharp cut-and-paste point there. If the page was gradually converted over several or many edits from being only about the primary elections to being about the presidential elections, then there is no single clear cut-and-paste point there. The best that can done is, for each state, to copy (e.g.) the last edit of United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2012 which is only about the primary election, and paste it into Nebraska Republican primary, 2012, and to put in Talk:Nebraska Republican primary, 2012 a history note explaining what was done. (I am British and I know little about USA elections.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: OK, sorry, forget about cloning the article (Though it is not only common, but even required practice in the German Wikipedia. But clearly not everything's better there, though in questions of attribution, de.wikipedia is very rigidly on the safe side.)
    As you probably know, it would have been way less work for me to do it the way you're proposing, but I wanted to be on the safe side by getting the page history properly restored. :/ And while I understand your concerns regarding that clear sharp cut-and-paste point, from what I saw, the indicated points are such clear sharp cut-and-paste points, with few or even no content being added to that section afterwards. But if you want, and if it made a difference, I could doublecheck every single of these pages. :) Regards, PanchoS (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: Oh, thanks for getting back to these – indeed they need to be resolved now. Now, it depends on what you think can be done. We won't have a history cloning process soon, so that's not an option. If you think they can be split at the points I suggested, fine. Otherwise I will have to withdraw all of these requests and will do so. Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Best withdraw all the 45 history-split requests, and text-split these pages at their current versions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

California Democratic primary, 2016[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of California Democratic primary, 2016, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/New_Jersey_Democratic_Primary,_2016.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Montana Democratic primary, 2016[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Montana Democratic primary, 2016, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/New_Jersey_Democratic_Primary,_2016.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

New Mexico Democratic primary, 2016[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of New Mexico Democratic primary, 2016, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/New_Jersey_Democratic_Primary,_2016.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

South Dakota Democratic primary, 2016[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of South Dakota Democratic primary, 2016, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/New_Jersey_Democratic_Primary,_2016.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Third Republican Party presidential debate, October 2015 in Boulder, Colorado[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Third Republican Party presidential debate, October 2015 in Boulder, Colorado, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.truefinder.org/republican-party-presidential-debates-october-28-2015-boulder-colorado/.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Food and drink categories[edit]

Thank you for the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_1#Food_and_drink/beverage, which I have now closed.

As you mentioned there, when you have time, please follow this up for the other by-year categories in Category:Food and drink companies by year of establishment, etc. – Fayenatic London 13:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thanks for your notice! I followed up in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Food and drink companies by year of establishment. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Very good work! – Fayenatic London 14:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wyoming Democratic caucuses, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-government organizations by country[edit]

Well done with your persuasive nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_5#Category:Non-governmental_organizations_by_country.

Would you like to redirect all the merged categories? especially the ones that are currently showing up in Category:Organizations by country.

(Pinging @Good Olfactory: as a courtesy since he closed and listed the CFD for processing.)

Note that there are more to be dealt with in Category:Non-governmental organizations. – Fayenatic London 14:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thanks! I recognize this has been a major change with the way we were used to categorize organizations, and actually expected more opposition. But then again, we need to constantly reassess the ways our categorization schemes work best for the content we already have or expect to have within the next years, and I would add: for the content we'd like to attract in order to improve and refine our coverage of knowledge.
Re the redirects: Hmm, I'm often unsure whether we should keep redirects or not, as I don't generally consider them cheap (technically they are of course, but it is often helpful to see a category was deleted by consensus, and have a link to that discussion). In this case I tend to say yes, we should, as the scheme used to be widely established for years, and still carries lots of interwikilinks.
Re the remaining categories: Yeah, I should have included the continents and regions in the last AfD, so I might have to file a third one. On the other hand, I never said we'd have to completely do away with the NGO concept – we may still need some subcategorization for U.N. recognized NGOs. I will soon take a closer look into these cases. Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
IMHO redirects would be useful in this case because it's a category name that people are liable to add again to articles. – Fayenatic London 15:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: I'm absolutely fine with that. But see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 14 – there's the opposition I had expected earlier and which we should probably resolve first. Not at all unreasonable, though I'm missing an approach that would be better than the one we took. --PanchoS (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the link. I've suggested there that the empty NGO categories should now be redirected to NPO. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Motorway 581 (Greece) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Motorway 581 (Greece) 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/Motorway 581 (Greece) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Marianian(talk) 23:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Lycée Français de Madrid[edit]

When managing categories of schools please keep in mind whether they have multiple campuses. If this is the case, categories which may seem redundant may in fact not be so.

In the case of Lycée Français de Madrid the category "Schools in the Community of Madrid" should not be removed because this is for the campus in Alcobendas, outside the Madrid city limits.

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: You were right, so thanks for reverting! However hidden comments are invisible unless the source code is edited, so errors like this will happen all the time. If out of 100 categorizations, 1 is suboptimal, then it's still gonna be an improvement. Even better, if someone notices. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I wish there was a way to "tag" the categories with a note so that people would be sure to see it. I guess now that people use Visual Editor people won't see the hidden comments I made WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Comments won't work for most people, not just because of visual editing, but also because of HotCat and Cat-a-lot. Therefore, "tagging" or adding notes to categories would be really awesome. To achieve that, we'd need a registry though, something like Wikidata, just for semantics on en.wikipedia. I actually guess, we will have someting like this at a future point. It would just be consequent. With the process of adopting even Wikidata's current features being incredibly slow, I wouldn't even propose additional features atm. I guess we have to live with it for now. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Organizations based in Zambia has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Organizations based in Zambia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. AusLondonder (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

National varieties of English[edit]

I have seen you are involved in a lot of category creation work. But I often have to take your categories to CFDS or CFD because their names do not respect WP:TIES. In general, Commonwealth countries use the spelling "organisation". Canada is an exception, generally using a mix of American and Commonwealth spelling. For example, you created the category Category:Buddhist organizations in Malaysia as a sub-cat of Category:Religious organisations based in Malaysia. The entire category tree uses the "organisation" spelling. AusLondonder (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: While I don't object your move in these two particular cases, what is really questionable is your absurd obsession with the "-ise" spelling which is just one acceptable variant in British English, though the more widespread one. Nobody is about to purge BE spelling variants from Wikipedia, but as long as you're pushing your agenda wherever possible, while consistently arguing with WP:RETAIN in opposite cases, you can't credibly hide behind the consistency argument. Many people would side with you, if it was about doing away with undue U.S. centric bias, wherever it exists, in fact I would. But unfortunately your efforts rather look like a "Britishness crusade" which in fact looks more nationalist than globalist. Note that I finally took a look at your userpage, and would subscribe to everything you're stating there, but if you want your efforts be taken serious, I really suggest you better follow your own commitments. --PanchoS (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to do with Britishness. The "ise" spelling is used in Australia, Ireland and India to name a few. "ise" is not acceptable in British English, that is a falsehood. Oxford spelling is not mainstream British English. I strongly support the use of "ize" spelling for the United States, Canada, Liberia and the Philippines. This is not a nationalist crusade. I loathe nationalism. Finally, please tell me one example where I have used WP:RETAIN to argue in favour of keeping Commonwealth spelling at an article strongly related to American English? AusLondonder (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: Well, obviously you wouldn't use WP:RETAIN against WP:STRONGTIES, but in contexts where there are no WP:STRONGTIES and no spelling variant is clearly prevalent, I noticed how you're selectively using either alleged ties or consistency with one or the other parent category in order to switch to "-ise", "-nce", "-tre" spelling variants, while at the same time countering opposite proposals with WP:RETAIN. I'm personally failing to see how your interest in Defence agencies motivated other than by crowding out the – internationally dominant – American English spelling. Again, I think we should work together establishing a brief styleguide for every single country that would be authoritative for all new content, and may be enforced on preexisting content after a few years, doing away with the essentially random first-come-first-serve kind of WP:RETAIN policy, which goes against our general policies that favor a recent consensus over subjective decisions by early editors. --PanchoS (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have only ever supported moves from American English to British English in cases where British English is used, for example Category:Convention centers in Barbados to Category:Convention centres in Barbados. I asked you to provided evidence for your claim that I'm "selectively using either alleged ties or consistency with one or the other parent category in order to switch to "-ise", "-nce", "-tre" spelling variants", you failed to do so. I respect national varieties of English, unfortunately your editing history shows you don't, as evidence by your creation of Category:Political organizations in the United Kingdom by ideology and this outrageous attempt to speedily impose American spelling on Australia, New Z, Irelahe UK. I don't accept that American English is globally dominant. Google does not properly index websites from countries such as India which consistently and overwhelming favours British spelling. In sheer population terms more countries use British spelling (Australia, Jamaica, Ireland, UK, India, South Africa and many smaller states) than American spelling. Also, just to clarify, I didn't create Category:Defence agencies by country. On a more positive note I support your idea for some kind of style-guide for each country. AusLondonder (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Deaf educators[edit]

Egberts (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Go ahead and hurry delete this Category:Deaf educators because it is too ambiguous (is it an Category:Educators of the deaf or Category:Deaf educators?) We have the appropriate alternative but more correct categories now.

Disambiguation link notification for May 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slobodna Dalmacija, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Climbs in cycle racing in Switzerland has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Climbs in cycle racing in Switzerland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Aviation in Turkey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kocaeli
Christian Kern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to ORF

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Timelines in economics has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Timelines in economics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 05:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

A request regarding Yazdanism[edit]

Hi PanchoS,

I have noticed your addition on Yazdanism. I do believe your neutrality and your effort to improve the article. However, I deleted a statement that was added by you per WP:SYNTH policy. (Actually, first I thought that it was WP:UNDUE but then I noticed that the theory of Yazdanism itself is almost a fringe theory. Thus, I have re-added the source by rewording it) After that, an Indian user involved in an edit-war and reverted me for dubious reasons to push his(or her) pov. Since I DO NOT believe the editor's neutrality due to his/her confirmed sockpuppetry( The editor was once banned for using socks to pov-pushing) and his/her other contributions regarding Pakistan-India and Hinduism topics, I decided to contact you for paying attention the article again. You are clearly neutral and adding scholarly sources to the articles. To sum up, I depend on your additions. Can you please watch the article in order to prevent it from further vandalism and pov-pushings? Bests, 46.221.232.220 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for notifying me, but could you please point me to the statement you're referring to? I am watching the article, and from time to time fixing one or the other aspect, but I really think the article has improved since I stepped in, and does represent the various perspectives, though it could still use more substantial input. I'll take another look at the recent edits. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, i didn't notice your answer. The deleted statement was "...some of which can been traced back to the elements of ancient Indian Vedic philosophy."
The cited source says . "The primordinal sacrifice of a bull, which follows upon the process of creation, is another basic feature of the common Iranian mythology. But in contrast to Zoroastrianism, which attributes this act of evil deity, Ahriman, both the Yezidis and the Yaresan see it as a positive occurance because it makes possible the generation of subsequent life. Since in the Vedic creation story this primordial sacrifice is also seen as benefical, Kreyenbroek proposes that Zoroastrianism version must be later innovation, with Mithra having been the original sacrificer"
Source: Religions in Iran: From Prehistory to Present, Richard Foltz, p. 226
Since the source does not say clearly/directly the statement you added, I think it is WP:SYNTH. Therefore I have removed it. What do you think? 46.221.217.207 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
PS:That was the main reason of edit-war between me and the Hindu user mentioned above. Anyway, as l told you, i do believe your neutrality and your effort to improve the article. Kind regards, 46.221.231.209 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

An another problem is that its "Kurdishness". Today, Zaza-Gorani languages are accepted as a distinct language group and Zazas, Goranis and Shabaks are thought as distinc ethnicities. Furthermore, the Nusayris also represented as "Yazdanis" by Izady(According to Izady, Nusayris are assimilated Kurds). Yarsanis are ethnically Goranis, Nusayris are ethnically Arabs and Ishhık Alevis are ethnically Zazas. So what now? In this case, the definition of Yazdanism as "original Kurdish religion" is also disputed. In addition, the invented symbol of "Yazdanism" (the sun with 21 rays) is also disputed. Firstly, Alevis, Nusayris and Yarsanis do not use it. Yazidis use the symbol of sun, however, the sun has 24 rays, not 21. See this and their flags. There are plenty of inconsistencies...The main motivation behind the claimed Yazdani symbol may be the Kurdish flag. Iraqi Kurdish flag have a sun with 21 rays. It seems that, the Yazdani symbol is an another invention by Izady.46.221.232.220 (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • That might in fact be the case or not, we'd need sources to prove either of these interpretations, but in the end that sun symbol isn't even mentioned in the article. All in all, Izady did quite some compelling research, but probably has gone a bit too far in synthesizing numerous established facts into a single grand theory. --PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: Is this categorization appropriate, since the term "Yazdanism" is not widely accepted by academical circles-in fact heavily disputed? Other religions such as Islam, Chistianity, Tengriism, Zorastriansim...have their historical basis, accepted as a "religion" by historians, scholars, academical circles etc. However, it is not the same for Yazdanism. I think it is wrong to represent a disputed theory as an established fact. I cannot intervene it, since I have no account. The same problem is also obvious in Zoroastrianism. 46.221.232.220 (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It seems a bit bold, but then again, the individual religions' relation and their common origins in old Iranian religions is established. Only the existence of a single predating religion is contested. We might want to come up with another established umbrella term, but we'd need to study quite some more literature first. We might want to leave it as is for now, but you might also start a discussion on Template talk:Religion topics and invite some more contributors from Portal:Religion. --PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions and contributions PanchoS. On the other hand, the article seems blog-like and target of pov-warriors now and needs an intervention of a veteran and neutral editor (like you). Unfortunately, my English is not sufficient and thus, i cannot do it myself alone. Regards, 46.221.200.167 (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
PS: Sorry for my ip changing constantly. It changes when I opened and closed my pc. Maybe it is time to create an account in en.wikipedia. 46.221.200.167 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Like many articles in this area, it will constantly be target of different kinds of POV-warriors. If damage is repeatedly done by IP editors, the article may be semi-protected. Because of that, it would be a very good idea for you to create an account. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mai-Ndombe District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bandundu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Motorway 123 (Greece) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Motorway 123 (Greece) 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/Motorway 123 (Greece) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Marianian(talk) 16:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Informal finance has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Informal finance, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 05:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vote counting in the Philippines[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Vote counting in the Philippines has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a direct copy paste of Philippine general election, 2016#Counting machines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. –HTD 11:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Gotthard Base Tunnel[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 1 June 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gotthard Base Tunnel, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Vote counting in the Philippines for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vote counting in the Philippines 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/Vote counting in the Philippines until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. –HTD 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Food and drink[edit]

Just a heads up that a few of the food and drink categories you've applied to categories such as Category:Food and drink companies of Bulgaria don't exist. ~ RobTalk 19:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks for the heads up, but that's just a matter of minutes, while I'm in the course of organizing the whole category tree. No big changes, basically I'm just completing whatever has been started here and there, to arrive at a consistent scheme across all countries' categories. --PanchoS (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

very zen like[edit]

some yes, some no... heheh JarrahTree 13:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Sorry, I don't get the context. What are you referring to? --PanchoS (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes: Music/Australia - yes to change that, but 'Dairy'? - nope, my engvar region and cultural context has never reduced the industry or production to a single word in common usage, there is usually always a qualifier - industry or farming being the usual... JarrahTree 13:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
more zen than I expected :) - in Indonesia one is understood by using the word 'milk' (susu) JarrahTree 15:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
LOL. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ninth Democratic Party presidential debate, April 2016 in Brooklyn, New York[edit]

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

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

A tag has been placed on Ninth Democratic Party presidential debate, April 2016 in Brooklyn, New York requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. TM 13:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ninth Democratic Party presidential debate, April 2016 in Brooklyn, New York[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Ninth Democratic Party presidential debate, April 2016 in Brooklyn, New York has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article regarding a non-notable single event during a presidential primary campaign. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. TM 14:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ninth Democratic Party presidential debate, April 2016 in Brooklyn, New York for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ninth Democratic Party presidential debate, April 2016 in Brooklyn, New York 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/Ninth Democratic Party presidential debate, April 2016 in Brooklyn, New York until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. TM 16:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yunus Emre Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Charitable foundations based in the United States has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Charitable foundations based in the United States, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 09:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Organizations by beneficiaries has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Organizations by beneficiaries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 05:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Gender inequality in South Korea[edit]

WP:PROD is for deletions that are expected to be uncontroversial. I would be surprised if "ridiculous stub" and a WP:TNT proposal resulted in a WP:SNOW delete at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kvng: OK, I filed a regular WP:AfD. I'm interested in your arguments on which basis this article should be kept. --PanchoS (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I will try to weigh in in the next few days. Did you see Talk:Gender inequality in South Korea § Reliable sources? Regardless of how this turns out, please try and use WP:AFD from the outset for potentially controversial deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kvng: I have little doubt that there is more than abundant material to write a proper, encyclopedic article on Sexism or Gender equality in South Korea. Though I'm rather an WP:INCLUSIONIST, my point is that this stub is one of the worst Wikipedia articles and, while I'd love to see it being improved. as it stands it IMHO is altogether useless. --PanchoS (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
OK but other editors may prefer to improve rather than delete something like this. Do you appreciate the potential controversy here? My reason for contacting you here is to remind you that WP:PROD is not the appropriate forum for potentially controversial deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kvng: I still don't consider deletion of this article controversial, but at the same time it's absolutely okay that you contested the PROD. People didn't prefer improving the article since 2013, but I'd happily withdraw my AfD nomination if it turned out to be the trigger for considerable improvement. --PanchoS (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, the fact that I deprodded it and am not seeing a valid WP:DEL-REASON in your prod or AfD tells me that you were wrong in your assessment of the level of controversy involved here. The effort required to improve the article to be an acceptable stub was also minimal. I simply removed the section about Jang Ja-yeon. I hope you find it a reasonable starting point now. Using the threat of deletion to motivate others to make the improvements you would like to see is bad form - WP:NODEADLINE. Please consider making these improvements yourself; Building the encyclopedia is what we're here for. ~Kvng (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You're not seriously claiming the one-sentence sub-stub, lacking a single reference, would be acceptable now, are you? Either way, I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. Weigh in at the AfD and convince others that this article should stay. --PanchoS (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I have done so. I expect it to go kind of like this. If I may ask, how much AfD experience do you have? ~Kvng (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Clearly less DEPRODding experience than you do… the relevant discussion is over there though, and I don't want to waste more time on useless chatting. --PanchoS (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
PanchoS, since the article had already been to AfD (albeit under a different name), it technically wasn't eligible for PROD, though I will concede you might not have known that . pbp 13:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hypermarket may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques|INSEE]] defines hypermarkets ({{lang-fr|hypermarché(s)}} as non-specialized markets with a minimum size of {{cvt|2500|m2|sqft}}.<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deportation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * {{cite book |last=Henckaerts |first=Jean-Marie |year=1995 |title=Mass Expulsion in Modern

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Request if you have some free time[edit]

Hi PanchoS, by chance would it be hard for you to nominate Category:Electronic music festivals by region for redirection to Category:Electronic music festivals by country? I'm a bit intimidated by the process myself to the point of always putting it off, but seems to be second nature to you. Either way, thanks for you edits on the festival tree, they've invariably been helpful/prudent. Earflaps (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Earflaps: Thank you so much! :)
It's so easy to give positive feedback with the new Thanks functionality, but still most people chose to give only negative feedback, and just take everything they like for granted. That's what really is intimidating, rather than the actual process, I guess. Now regarding that category: good catch! As an obvious, IMHO uncontroversial case, I even nominated it per WP:CFDS. Should be fixed in a few days. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Earflaps: See, again we're having different ideas of how things should be categorized. Not saying your idea wasn't reasonable, hopefully you think the same of my perspective. You're trying to be very rigid, which generally is a good thing. But in a finite world, especially with a finite number of articles that are extremely unbalanced in quantity, you'll have to make compromises between rigidity, size, suitability and adequacy. And at that point everybody has their own idea of what would be the best compromise… Luckily, often good solutions are found. Unfortunately, sometimes the outcome at CfD is horrible, but that might only from my perspective. Others consider other outcomes as horrible. "Objectivity" is a chimaera. --PanchoS (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Not quite sure what the second paragraph is all about exactly, but for the first one, you're very welcome, and thank you very much for the move! Its something that's needed to be done a long time :) About us having different ideas on categorizing, I think you might have a slightly false idea about where I'm coming from. Generally, my edits with categories dont represent my opinion at all - in the vast majority of cases, I'm just continuing a trend started by one or several other Wikipedians years before me (after scanning several category trees to study for the norm). I generally try and assume my predecessors were editing with a clear gaze, and knew what they were doing. So when I get "creative," it's normally because our predecessors did something blatantly untenable or (like categorizing "sporting events" as festivals, ugh, that one drives me crazy), or there needs to be something new to fill a void (like a way to separate region subcats in the festival tree from genre subcats for ease of reading - you'll notice I eventually settled on "+" signs for the regions, and an empty space for type/genre, which for better or worse is consistent now on basically all festival categories). But otherwise, I strive not to rock the boat. Earflaps (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Earflaps: Oh, I thought it to be obvious that in my second paragraph, I was referring to your answer at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 18#Category:10,000 Lakes Festival by year. Nevermind. I actually don't think I have a false idea about your approach at categorization, and mostly I agree with it. Sometimes, I think it gets a bit over the top in terms of rigidity, but mostly the consistency is welcome and, in fact, very much needed. I guess some others think the same of my edits, from their own perspective. I think it's all fine, as long as we can talk about our different approaches in a civil and respectful way, and find consensuses that will sometimes be good and sometimes not so good. That's in the nature of such discussions. Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops, my bad, I should've assumed that - my mind reverted to the fireworks festivals and sports festivals discussions some months ago, where I remember agreeing with your comments. I actually always tend to accept your opinion on categories as the way to go, since you've obviously spent years working with and discussing them (whereas I've only dabbled the past few years). And I've refreshingly never seen you warp an interpretation of the style guidelines just to win an argument, which means discussions can actually get somewhere/result in sensible solutions :) So thanks again, and all the best! Earflaps (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Helen Joanne Cox.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Helen Joanne Cox.jpg. 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. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Electric power transmission companies has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Electric power transmission companies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Category Barnstar Hires.png The Category Barnstar
Thanks for your work in improving and expanding Wikipedia's categories, an important part of the encyclopedia that many readers and users may not otherwise notice. Thanks PanchoS, North America1000 08:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Northamerica1000! Always a pleasure if those things don't go unnoticed. :) Which ones were you just pleased to find? Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I added Wikiproject banners to the talk pages of food and drink category pages you created. North America1000 08:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice – thank you, too, Northamerica1000! --PanchoS (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Fritz-Kola...[edit]

Seems...the ping did not work...or are you not interested in the article anymore? Lectonar (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing Gibraltar category problem[edit]

Thank you for fixing this category problem. It is strange that there is not also a Category:Consequences of the War of the Spanish Succession. MPS1992 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Whatever isn't there, is only waiting for someone who creates it – for example you, if you're knowledgeable in the Spanish Succession War, and if you're confident enough you can "make it work", having viable in- and/or exclusion criteria. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cucciolo gatto Bibo.jpg

Hi PanchoS, thanks for being so nice at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_21#Category:Cow_welfare_organizations

Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

DOT (philippines)[edit]

Departement of Transportation and Communications is separated now. President Duterte renamed new secretary of transportation and secretary of information and communications technology. how is this?? :) :) Akuindo (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

33rd Ale Kino! Festival[edit]

The article 33rd Ale Kino! Festival has been nominated for deletation. You are invited to present you opinion/vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/33rd Ale Kino! Festival. Thank you. Kyleall (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised[edit]

by your "single source" tag at Black supremacy since each of the three or four groups mentioned seems to have a different source. However I want to discuss it with you before removing the tag. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Carptrash: All were published in the same magazine. We should look for additional sources that are independent from the SPLC. Find some reliable ones, and you're free to remove th tag. --PanchoS (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
makes sense, now Carptrash (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Music competitions[edit]

See Category talk:Song contests by year. J 1982 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

English sources template[edit]

Hi, thanks for helping out with Template:Needs English sources. Have you seen my post at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Maintenance#Template:Needs English sources? I got part way through setting up the template and then realized I was stuck on technical grounds. Do you have any experience in setting up the infrastructure for these templates? Largoplazo (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: For now, I created a basic category to collect all tagged articles. I think the new template should be further established before setting up per-month categories and further infrastructure. There's no point in having categories per month for just a handful of articles. Feel free to contact me for assistance again, after revisiting the situation in a few months. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Hey, just a question for you regarding going forward with Stefanomione. I've been meaning to raise this question with a few editors, and you've just been more or less randomly selected as the first one I bring it up with because you just edited the userpage with the kind of notification I am wondering about.

Given that Stefanomione is indefinitely banned from participating in CFD or making category-related edits, do you think it's a good idea to post notifications on his user page that specifically invite him to participate in CFD discussions? I find it kind of perverse. It could be interpreted in a few different ways by the user—I'm not saying that any of these was your actual intent (in fact I'm pretty sure they were not)—I'm just trying to put myself in his position and consider what I would think if I was banned from CFD but I kept getting notifications. I might think that:

  1. users who notify are "rubbing it in"—emphasising that I have created a bunch of bad categories that need to be discussed by the community; or
  2. users are attempting to goad me into violating my prohibition on participating at CFD so that I will be blocked.

I guess the bottom line I'm wondering about is this—what purpose does it serve to notify him? Is it just so that he is aware that content he created is under discussion? Should we ask him what he thinks about being notified in this way? If he is notified, should we use a different method other than the template that invites him to participate? Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: That's an interesting question and a reasonable concern. It was WP:TWINKLE that automatically notified Stefanomione when I nominated that category. So whatever we want to be done in these cases, should be implemented in Twinkle, too. I think, we should post something to the talk pages of both blocked and topic-banned users, but with a different wording that only notifies rather than inviting the creator for comment. Reasons for continuing to post notices:
  • Information for admins who might be evaluating an unblock request or appeal to lift the topic ban.
  • Information for the category's (or article's) creator whose block or ban may expire in the meantime.
  • Information for the category's (or article's) creator that the community continues to deal with their pages. While the user may be banned from participation, the information might still be relevant for them, causing them to file an appeal or request an unblock, possibly limited to the particular issue.
Making Twinkle behave well in all possible cases, is going to be a quite tricky task. Either way we have to figure out which cases we have to deal with, how to discriminate between the cases in an automated way, and which reaction is expected in the particular case. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very good, I agree with what you have written. I'll try to pursue this, though I don't know very much about Twinkle, so it might be something I just need to raise with the right people to get something done. Good points on why notifications might still be useful to have. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't make inaccurate changes[edit]

Your change here was completely wrong. That was not the route the attacker took. It was the entire avenue highlighted. Don't make inaccurate changes if you don't know what it is you're doing. -- Veggies (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Veggies: Given that you're wrong, a slightly more friendly tone would be appropriate. --PanchoS (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
How am I wrong? The driver didn't go down the entire length of the avenue. -- Veggies (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Veggies: You're wrong in stating I wouldn't know what I'm doing. I decided that one map would be enough, and from the two maps to choose from, I chose the one that gives more context. Is the other one more precise, in the light of ongoing investigations? OK, I agree, so swapping them was a good decision. But the issue here is your inappropriate tone, not the question whether "I know what I'm doing" or not. --PanchoS (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Shopping center[edit]

Hello. I realized after hitting Enter that my edit summary on the last undo may have sounded a bit too harsh. The point I was trying to make in the limited space available was that there are 988 other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Shopping center". Although I'm sure some of those are errors, it's likely that a good percentage of them were inserted by editors who were well aware that Shopping center was a redirect to Shopping mall and intended to refer readers to that article. If the target of the redirect is changed, all those links will become inaccurate. That is why the change is potentially disruptive, and should not be made until after a consensus has been established. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Polatli-Konya high-speed railway[edit]

Hello,

You have recently undone my move of Polatli-Konya high-speed railway to Ankara-Konya high-speed railway. I am puzzled as to why you did this, as the high-speed railway branches of the Istanbul-Ankara high-speed railway at Polatli. Therefore, Polatli is the start of the railway, not Ankara. If you are referring to the routes of the Yuksek Hizli Tren service then it is another matter, but that page is about the railway itself, not the route. I will request of move of the page back to Polatli-Konya high-speed railway.

Thank you for understanding.

Central Data Bank (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Central Data Bank: I explained it in the edit summary, see here, though it was slightly shortened: restore original title per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, no evidence was presented that the tracks end at a switch in Polatlı – they might continue to Ankara. I'm fine with renaming it back, if evidence is presented either of common usage of "Polatlı-Konya high-speed railway", or of the tracks ending at a switch near Polatlı without separate tracks between Polatlı and Ankara. Currently neither is present, and the title in the Turkish Wikipedia (and all others) suggest the tracks go all the way to Ankara. Generally a {{Requested move}} is always better except for completely uncontroversial cases. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Statue of Humanity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anadolu Ajansı (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello Alexbrn, and welcome to Wikipedia, too. The only one who repeatedly reverted the same addition by another user is you. I therefore added this notice to your talk page, in order to make sure you are aware of our policies. Feel free to ask if you have any further policy questions, including why your revert was acceptable, though your notice was not. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe see WP:BRD. Repeatedly restoring your "version" of an article is edit-warring, and inserting unreliable content damages the encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Please elaborate on this, so the case of your WP:Wikilawyering and WP:WikiBullying#False accusations gets clear enough to take it to WP:ANI. --PanchoS (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't base biomedical claims on primary sources: please see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Happy to discuss further on the article's Talk page if necessary afterwards. Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: OK, you obviously understood my point and I understood yours, so let's just leave it at that. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Syrian National Coalition members has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Syrian National Coalition members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 05:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Pipeline categories[edit]

Hi, PanchoS. You created several pipeline categories and categorized them also in the energy infrastructure. I agree that most of pipelines are energy-related, such as oil pipelines and natural gas pipelines. At the same time, not all pipelines are energy-related. The most significant exemption are water pipelines. Therefore, while oil, natural gas, and hydrogen pipelines should be included in the energy infrastructure system, the adding of the general pipeline categories should be avoided by my understanding. Regards, Beagel (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: True. However I only created a single container category, Category:Proposed pipelines by country to hold preexisting per-country categories, and didn't touch or change their categorization in the energy infrastructure tree. Feel free to remove the whole Category:Pipelines scheme from the energy tree. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Title of Rhode Island Democratic primary, 2016[edit]

Dear Pancho S.,

Rhode Island is one of several states that held presidential primaries before the July conventions, but customarily hold primaries for other offices in September, among them New York (the 9/11/2001 attacks actually hit Lower Manhattan on primary day, which had to be rescheduled), Massachusetts, Missouri and Washington. For details, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com

For such states, "Democratic" or "Republican" "primary, 2016" is too ambiguous. Either it should be in the plural and cover both election days, or else each respective article's title needs to specify which one is meant.

So I opened Talk:Rhode Island Democratic primary, 2016, an article which you started and for which you seem to be the principal editor, to start a discussion. I would appreciate your comments there. Even if you don't comment, I thought it only fair to let you know.

Best wishes on the campaign trail,

—— Shakescene (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

An administrator, User:Thumperward, has completed the move and redirect for me. See Rhode Island Democratic primary, 2016 and User_talk:Thumperward#Retitling_request_for_Rhode_Island_Democratic_primary, 2016. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Christianity in the former Soviet Union has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Christianity in the former Soviet Union, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 06:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:No redirect conditional[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:No redirect conditional. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

When all else fails, read the instructions[edit]

Since you've been around near as long ans me, please see this post given this edit by you... {{merge}}, {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} all have instructions on how to link a section, and the implication is you need to justify the tagging with some rationales. // FrankB 02:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fabartus: Well, actually the proper badge would have been Template:Summarize. Following an article split, the content needs to be summarized in the main article. --PanchoS (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Either way, if you're going to dis others contributions and decisions, do leave a clue or three as to what you feel justifies YOUR judgement. // FrankB 22:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fabartus: Summarizing a subtopic after an article split is a necessary task rather than a matter of judgement, see #6 on WP:PROPERSPLIT. --PanchoS (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I believe we were discussing the opposite, eliminating a page and merging it into another, which should and does require a consensus. Or have the rules changed? And you can quote or cite WP guidelines all day long, but it won't make it courteous, sensible, nor correct--at the time, or as is more likely, affecting many by hanging around for months and quarters... affecting many people trying to find your rationale. In reality, we were chiding you for your lack of communication. SO TAKE THE HINT and document in the future. Enough of this communication. Just try an remember your lack of action can adversely affect the time of others--our most precious commodity! // FrankB 13:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Lang-zh[edit]

Template:Lang-zh has been nominated for merging with Template:Zh. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Beland (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nahiya Jarabulus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayn al-Bayda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kurdish Supreme Committee emblem.svg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kurdish Supreme Committee emblem.svg. 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) 17:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Political party categorisation[edit]

As somewhat of a category expert, would you perhaps be able to weigh in on this discussion? Many thanks. - Biruitorul Talk 23:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

please come back[edit]

sometime, there is some weirdness that I think you might be able to fathom, cheers JarrahTree 10:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Helen Joanne Cox.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Helen Joanne Cox.jpg, which you've attributed to http://www.jocox.org.uk. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. N-C16 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Deceleration has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Deceleration, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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) 07:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, PanchoS. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cathead Conservatism in[edit]

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 that the page you created, Template:Cathead Conservatism in, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed 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. – S. Rich (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cathead Conservative parties by country[edit]

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 that the page you created, Template:Cathead Conservative parties by country, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed 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. – S. Rich (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jusos.svg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jusos.svg. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)