User talk:PanchoS/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit warring

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

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^(TALK_CONT) 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

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

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

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. 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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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. 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)

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)

Name of article

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)

• @Carcharoth: Feel free to go ahead and create that article, as you're clearly more into the whole topic. While the title doesn't have to be final, Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill seems to be a good choice for now. I might join in tonight, though my time is rather limited at the moment. Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That multi-wiki BLP violation

All entries now nuked! 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)

Barnstar

		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

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

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)

• @Victuallers: Sayada (disambiguation) doesn't exist, as in the absence of a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Sayada is the disambiguation page, whereas the two towns are both disambiguated. --PanchoS (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation

	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

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

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

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

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. 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

Template: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

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

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)

Category:Winter in Czechoslovakia has been nominated for discussion

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)

Category moves

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)

Question

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

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)

Template errors

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

• See what transcludes errors

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

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)

DYK for Františka Plamínková

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

Thanks RE:Turkey

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)

Reply Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 revert

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:R from hashtag

Template: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

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 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)

California Democratic primary, 2016

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

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

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

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

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:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katie^talk 21:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Third Republican Party presidential debate, October 2015 in Boulder, Colorado

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)

Your 45 history-merge requests

• Your 45 additions to Category:Candidates for history merging :: what do you want to be done? For example :: Nebraska Republican primary, 2012 has only 2 edits, being a redirect and your history-merge request. The histmerge request wants page United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2012 to be split at edit 02:13, 8 October 2012 by GoldRingChip; but United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2012's edit history runs continuously through that point with no sign of being blanked and restarted. Likewise those other of those histmerge request that I have examined. I would prefer to have this matter properly discussed before I undertake 45 history-split edits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard: Thanks for your notice. A few of these 50+ articles on the 2012 Rep primaries were indeed blanked and redirected, such as Alabama Republican primary, 2012 or Alaska Republican caucuses, 2012. Nothing to do there. The 45 articles I nominated for histmerge however were not blanked and redirected, but renamed and repurposed, or effectively merged. All apparently without prior discussion or consensus, and even though good-faithed, it simply was no good idea.
  Now, in order to restore the 45 repurposed ones, including the one you mentioned, Nebraska Republican primary, 2012, I asked you to split the page history of United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2012. An alternative – possiby better – approach might be cloning the whole article United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2012 with its complete history to Nebraska Republican primary, 2012, then to be stripped off the content outside of the individual primary's scope.
  If I chose the wrong words, so you still don't really get my intentions and rationale, feel free to inquire again. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Anthony Appleyard: Hold on a sec, I'm going to show you the intended result on the Washington Republican caucuses, 2012 example (of couse without imported history, which is something I can't do). --PanchoS (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@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)

• @PanchoS: It may be easier to continue to let the primary election pages redirect to the presidential election pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• For example, in United States presidential election in Nebraska, 2012, the change point is at this edit, but this is not a clean blanking-and-pasting-in, but the old text continues alongside the new text. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• In each state's elections info page, the text about the primary elections may have been edited after the text about the presidential election was added. Thus, if the primary elections must be on a separate page, it would be best to cut-and-paste them from the current version (and add a history note in its talk page), and not to go back to old edits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cloning an article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Please what do you want to be done with these 45 history-split or text-split requests? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:25, 1 April 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)

• @Anthony Appleyard: While not convinced this really is the best approach, I'm okay with going down this road in order to have the issue finally resolved. PanchoS (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Y done. Let's continue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cloning an article. --PanchoS (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

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. 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)

Food and drink categories

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)

Non-government organizations by country

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

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

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

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)

Deletion of Category:Deaf educators

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.

National varieties of English

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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

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. 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

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

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

added a link pointing to Kocaeli

Christian Kern

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. ~ Rob^Talk 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

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

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

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

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

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

• On the Pan-Africanism page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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

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. 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

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)