Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

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

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

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

• For the Philippines, I think the change was simply "Philippine X" to "X in the Philippines", which isn't necessarily wrong. The Puerto Rico one, OTOH, changed from fraternities and sororities to Student societies. OTOH, the categories for things like lists of members of fraternities and sororities uses the term student societies. I'd be interested in trying to figure out what goes into the consistent naming scheme, and what shouldn't. For the Philippines, all fraternities and sororities would be viewed as societies, but not all societies are counted as fraternities and sororities, particularly the ethnic based groups which don't go by greek letters.Naraht (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi, Naraht! I'm with you considering "Student societies" the slightly broader concept than "fraternities and sororities". As the student traditions and the names are quite diverse throughout the world, it is not that easy to come up with a consistent naming scheme. However, I do understand that there must be a way to deal with the differences such as fraternities vs. ethnic societies. So we probably want to subdivide "Student societies" to "fraternities and sororities", "ethnic based societies" or "academic societies". On one hand, the parent category "Student societies" seems unnecessary then. On the other hand, in many countries there will be just plain "Student societies" which are neither fraternities nor ethnic nor whatever else. I therefore tend to keep "student societies" as the main category allowing for subdivisions. What do you think? Regards, PanchoS (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

What exactly do you want to tell me when you say "Was that you also"? Yes, as you can see, it was me who redirected this cat. Possibly you gained so much bad experience in the Wikipedia community that you rightaway expect any ill intentions. Contrary to that I did this move in the course of creating a better, more consistent and more comprehensive structure for youth organizations. And believe me, I invested a lot of time in improving the categorization the last days.
Fact is the categorization was (and mostly still is) very fragmented and bears a consistent outline. The category you are talking about had only a few members, which means it covered maybe some random 2% of Christian university organizations. I gave most of the members a better place in the category tree and purged out the rest to Christian organizations.
You are right in that this was wrong and that I should have filed a CfD. I'm gonna try harder to avoid such a situation from now on. But please also try harder to keep polite and don't disrespect the hard work of others. PanchoS (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before I delete this category, can you show where discussion occured to gather consensus to remove articles from the category? And can I please have a list of the articles you removed from this category? Also, where is the alternative category that these articles now exist within? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi PanchoS, I'm not sure if you are about, but would you be able to provide an answer to this question? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If PanchoS tells us when the changes were done they can be found in the Special:Contributions/PanchoS page. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...and I'd like to hear your comment on this, that's why I'm posting here. GregorB (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, when I read it first, I didn't have time to answer and then forgot about it. But you are right in that there is no fundamental difference to the Michelson–Morley experiment. In both cases the dash replaces the conjunction 'and', which is usually represented by a hyphen. That this case is listed as ause case for indicating disjunction in WP:DASH looks quite odd to me and I will certainly join the discussion over this MOS paragraph. I nominated these articles for rename to achieve consistency with their respective categories after a speedy CfD was turned down (where I shared Good Ol'factory's plausible argument that these are conjunctions, not discunctions). While I would still say that our point is right and this needs to be discussed on a general basis, for now you are right in that there need to be en-dashes according to WP:DASH. One argument for the use of hyphens remains: that hyphens are used both officially and unofficialy in Croatian. However, the best thing to do seems to discuss this at a Requested Move. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the issue is slightly more complicated than it appears. Thanks for the clarification. GregorB (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your response! How should we proceed ? PanchoS (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure myself. Let's say we have a Šibenik-Knin County and a Šibenik-Knin (Railway) Line. In both of these cases we are speaking of two entities, Šibenik and Knin, but I don't think that the dash has the same meaning in both cases. In the former case, there is really a conjunction ("and"), while in the latter there is not. This reasoning appears to be compatible with the three examples I gave (extrapolating from WP:DASH), but I'm not sure whether this reasoning itself is valid or not. GregorB (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Also your proposed regionalisation violates WP:OR. Orderinchaos 04:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and think tanks and youth parliaments are not "political organisations". Orderinchaos 05:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And trade unions are not political organisations, nor are student unions student political organisations. Orderinchaos 06:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After speaking with a number of other editors, I decided to proceed anyway - all except a few which preexisted this particular push have now been deleted and the edits putting them in place have been reverted. There are others of concern too when I look through your edit history - none of which show any evidence of consultation and several of which are straight-out wrong - particularly the regionalisations. I note also that a fair few people have expressed concerns above on your talk page. I would suggest that in future if you wish to conduct a grand scheme of category design, you first do your research so you understand what you are dealing with/talking about, then approach the affected projects first and get consensus and feedback (consensus for major changes is in fact core policy) - it follows that the more users that are affected, the wider the consensus needed, and you may actually need to start an RFC and advertise it to all projects and get in someone who knows what they're doing to moderate it. If you proceed as you have been with what basically amounts to disruptive (although well-meaning) editing on a grand scale, I will be requesting that your ability to do so through HotCat is switched off. Orderinchaos 06:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

• As you can see I neatly integrated some categories on education institutions within the rather orphaned parent category Category:Educational institutions, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 1#Category:Australian education organisations. If you call it changing the world that I integrated categories such as Category:Educational institutions in the Philippines Category:Educational institutions in Prague, Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment, Category:Educational institutions by year of disestablishment, Category:Bahá'í educational institutions, Category:Orthodox Jewish educational institutions, Category:Educational institutions of the Moravian Church or Category:Academic institutions as sub-categories of Category:Educational institutions, then be it. I'd rather say I'm doing some cleanup work as many others do.
  Even if it were so that at the moment I concentrated more on the category system than many other editors – what's wrong with that? My feeling that the categorization could use additional help arose from the article namespace. And some day I will concentrate more on articles again. I mean, everybody here seeks its primary area, at least for a certain period, what's wrong if I think I can help here? Others are doing templates, maps, photos, Interwiki links, article deletions, or in the article namespace concentrate on schools or parties or cities or mountains or whatever. That's all fine.
  Concerning the spelling of organi(s/z)ations: I see that this is very important to some people. Okay, sure I can file the New Zealand and Pakistan categories as Speedy-Cfrs. Hold on a sec and it's gonna be done. PanchoS (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Done the New Zealand part. Even included Category:Human rights organizations in New Zealand which I didn't create. PanchoS (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not sure about the spelling of organi(s/z)ation in Pakistan. Google gives 425 results for organization (including the Population Census Organization, the National Census Organization or the Drugs Control Organization, but only 357 results for organisation (including the Intellectual Property Organisation of Pakistan). Further research seems to be needed on this. — PanchoS (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I really appreciate your conciliatory response, especially after we clashed a bit just a few hours ago on Category talk:Political parties in Indonesia. You encountered me there in a bit patronizing way, and I certainly reacted a bit more edgily than necessary. However, I definitely always assume good faith. I know enough about the preconceptions we're all entangled in, me, you, every single human. And while most of us take pains to be as unbiased as possible, noone can abandon his or her world view. It's exactly this, why I sometimes react a bit irritated if someone says: "This is true – that is wrong". Given that in a few cases, explicit rules or guidelines apply clearly distinguishing right from wrong, still in most cases the picture is more complex and might include contradictory or even dialectical aspects. So it is perfectly understandable why people take different stences on various questions without one being more honest than the other.
  Still, being honest or doing things in good faith is only a good basis – it is inevitable that people (again including me, you, everyone) stress those aspects of a certain decision that support their personal preference and tend to underexpose other aspects that question their personal preference. This is a necessary feature of our brain, and might still lead to people erroneously questioning the honesty or the good faith of someone. All we can do to this is 1. being as transparent as possible about what we do, 2. be open to criticism brought up in a constructive way, 3. understand that there is often not a single best solution.
  Now, what I'm doing here includes being bold (WP:SOFIXIT) while still trying to be careful. Certainly, in the meanwhile I have learned more about some processes and aspects, and am more careful now than I was one month ago. And I will certainly be even more careful in the near future than I was some days ago. Still, I will make one or the other obvious error, which in some case might be annoying. However I'm certainly ready to face constructive criticism. That's all not new to me, so I was quite shocked to see Orderinchaos question my good faith and more.
  However, you are right in that I can vastly improve on my communication efforts on user talk pages and portals, and I will try hard to do so in order to come closer to my ideals as stated above.
  Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would not have had the outlook on the world like I have now a year ago - but having done a world trip late last year for a while (I have a friend in Chile who survived the earthquake, I have walked some famous cities etc etc) I am ever more concerned on wikipedia that anyone - no matter whether a 300 edit or a 300,000 edit history tries 'to make sense' of issues by categories or trying to make cross wiki changes is likely to have more than a few things to trip up on - (at least you have a sense of the dialectic ) - which is more than I can say for some eds who try to think they WP:OWN the place - so take care and beware the foibles of inter-racial, inter-regional and inter-national variants that keep some parts of wikipedia quaint and highly variable despite the best efforts of the geographically and culturally challenged to make 'one size fits all' type remedies - oh and btw the Australasia category I put up for deletion  :) and I do not support its reinstatement - but that is a long story - some other time SatuSuro 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For turning a sow's ear into a purse. Dlohcierekim 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Category:Centrist organizations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi PanchoS

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

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

Re: 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application

PanchoS, Fences&Windows, JohnCD, hi!

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

• PanchoS: during the discussion, you said "...The "Libertas-cyclopedia" this author posted to Wikipedia has some 20 articles plus 10 categories plus a huge navbar, as if we were talking about an important party with a long history. In fact the party has little to no influence, few members and exactly one mandate in the European Parliament. Neither this nor the short history nor the few substantial information there is about this party grants a separate article for these sub-topics..."

My reply: The importance of Libertas.eu lay not in the party per se: its importance lay in the structure of, and evolution of, political parties at European level (aka Europarties). The reason why I spent so much time on it was by developing a structure for the articles on Libertas, we could have rolled out articles with a similar structure for the other Europarties. Libertas.eu was born, lived and died in a blaze of publicity, so each step in its development was signposted. By noting those steps we could have structured the present articles on the other Europarties using the same signposts and, as new ones emerged, done the same for future Europarties.

• JohnCD: during the discussion, you said "...a single author is spamming Wikipedia with innumerable articles about a subject that deserves no more than one. This is a transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to exaggerate its importance, contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT..."

My reply: As I said above, the articles were an attempt to develop a structure for articles on the birth, life and death of Europarties. That structure could have been used (hopefully, still can) for the other Europarties.

No violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT was intended - arguably, no violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT actually occurred. The relevant passage in WP:NOTE reads "...If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article..." (WP:SIGCOV). The 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition article met this, in multiple news articles across multiple countries in multiple languages.

• Fences&Windows: during the discussion, you said "...they are political geekery and trivia of the highest order..."

My reply: Guilty, and cheerfully so: I may put that quote on my homepage when I get reliable Internet access again...:-) More seriously, political geekery neither qualifies nor disqualifies article existence: WP:NOTE does, and I refer you to my comments above.

• Summary: the Libertas articles were not written as a partisan gesture: they were an attempt to develop a stucture for all Europarty articles.

• Summary of the summary: don't be so quick to WP:ABF, huh?...:-)

• To all: The 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application dealt with an important point in the creation of Europarties: the relevant legislation mandates a minimum number of supporters, but previous Europarties had previously defined "supporters" as political parties: Libertas defined them as political individuals. The accompanying confusion had legal implications for the birth of Europarties and (by extension) the articles on those parties (when does an Europarty come into existence? What is its exact birthdate?). The points in the article and their sources were intended to be used in the political party at European level article. Given this, if the article (or at least the sources) could be resurrected and placed on my homepage, I would be grateful, although I appreciate that may not be possible.

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

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

• [1]

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

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

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

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

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

Hello PanchoS! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,787 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the article:

1. Nikolay Bliznakov - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Category:Categories by paradigm, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Verband der Wissenschaftlichen Katholischen Studentenvereine Unitas, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Template:CatNationality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:CatCountry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Category:Education in Northern America, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sororities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |[[Netherlands]] ||[[United States Ambassador to the Netherlands|Ref]]||[[Timothy M. Broas]]||[[Embassy of the United States, The Hague|The Hague]||March 2014

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Abderraouf Ayadi

added a link pointing to Ennahda

Republican Party of Russia – People's Freedom Party

added a link pointing to Forward Russia

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abderrazak Kilani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mohamed Abbou. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Communist Party of Nepal (2013) 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) 00:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• @Dannis243: Thank you very much! I can see the problem and will try to fix it tonight! Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you did not fix this tonight why and could you possibly do it now? Dannis243 (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello?!

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arab Organization for Human Rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hammamet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Wahid Institute is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wahid Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

PS, I saw that you attempted to revert to the electiontable format at Template:Algerian presidential election, 2014, but ended up breaking the table again. Please avoid using electiontable – it's useless! Cheers, Number 57 00:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Number 57: Template:Electiontable is successfully used on hundreds of election result tables. Would you please go into detail what exactly you feel is "broken" about it or why it should be "avoided wherever possible", and why your non-standard CSS-fiddling workaround would be "preferable"... If you think that Template:Electiontable should be improved then feel free to throw in your proposals at Template Talk:Electiontable. Otherwise please stop reverting my edits and wasting my and your time. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pancho. I'm sorry you think I'm wasting our time, but given that I've spend the last few years trying to bring some kind of order and consistency to election articles, I'd hope not. Yes, electiontable is used on hundreds of articles, but there are tens of thousands of election articles around, and by far the most commonly used table is the simple wikitable.

I didn't say electiontable was broken – I said the templates you were adding were broken because you didn't create the correct number of cells, so there were gaps in the table. However, I did say it was useless – its problems include:

• Messing up header rows – as you can see in this version of the 2014 template (which also features the missing cell), there are a few problems - the column headers no longer function properly (the text is right-aligned instead of being centred) and are not the correct colour. If you want them to appear correctly, you have to add a load of extra code to the table.
• Having overly-long heading titles – the Algerian one is an example of this, where the results table is narrower than the heading, which is then wrapped over two rows, leaving a single word on the second line – very poor from a stylistic point of view.
• Always including the title – in many articles the template heading title is unneccesary duplication from what is in the article it's being used in – often it will be directly below the main "Results" heading, so there's no need for another heading directly afterwards (which also duplicates the name of the article).

These are just a few I can think of off the top of my head before I have to run off. However, a basic point, as I said above, is that templates simply aren't necessary for historical elections, as so few transclusions occur (often only one, on the election article itself). Number 57 11:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on First austerity package (Greece) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Qxukhgiels (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that this may be a work in process. I suggest you draft in your userspace.Qxukhgiels (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd actually even preferred to draft in my userspace or offline. However WP:SPLIT requires to make the step of splitting an article as transparent as possible, which here unfortunately means: split first, fix second and improve afterwards. --PanchoS (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stavros Theodorakis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gypsy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dimitris Reppas

added a link pointing to Ministry of Transport and Communications

Economic Adjustment Programme for Cyprus

added a link pointing to Financial assistance

Economic Adjustment Programme for Ireland

added a link pointing to Financial assistance

Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal

added a link pointing to Financial assistance

First Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece

added a link pointing to Financial assistance

Greek legislative election, 2015

added a link pointing to Spiegel

Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece

added a link pointing to Financial assistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Faculty by university or college in the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 00:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Thanks for the reminder. However, your questions are rather to be discussed on the template's talk page. --PanchoS (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a) Yes, that was indeed the point of my reminder. b) Thanks for opening this issue. Sadly, I'm not a template expert - do you have the skills/knowledge to make the necessary changes? If so, great! If not, how do we move forward? Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bodo Ramelow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vassilis Ephremidis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Left Unity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yassine Brahim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manager. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

On 17 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Plaka Bridge, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Plaka Bridge (pictured) in western Greece, formerly the largest single-arch stone bridge in the Balkans, survived bombing by the Luftwaffe, but was destroyed by floods on 1 February 2015? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Plaka Bridge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dora Heyenn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Left. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 1132 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Motorway 5 (Greece), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pyrgos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thessaloniki–Bitola railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monastir. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hey @MSGJ: last time I used WP:CFD for an unanimous per-main-article move, I was asked not to bother and do it right away. Don't worry though, I'm experienced enough to know how all categorized articles are subsequently moved by a bot, and will work through the tree on a systematic way, so by tomorrow it will be all fine again. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure? Can you tell me which bot will do this work for you? I trust you to fix all this up, but I'm a little worried about the amount of work you are creating. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked my logs and it's RussBot doing that work every morning at 9:15 AM. I expected it to be perfectly okay to rely on RussBot's work, but if it's not, I will happily return to nominating categories, which is less work for me. I'll however finish what I started now, because a half-finished moving of the category tree is certainly worse. --PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay then, hopefully everything will be sorted at 09:15 tomorrow :) Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kallikratis Plan

added links pointing to Window of opportunity and Stakeholder

Kentriki Ellada

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

NUTS of Greece

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

Nisia Aigaiou, Kriti

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

Voreia Ellada

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cabinet of George Papandreou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodoros Pangalos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rena Dourou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Dawn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:For-profit schools, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amyntaio Power Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

• Indeed we shall see. Re "changing the game", from your mouth to Tsipras' ear. Don't get your hopes up, though... Constantine ✍ 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Decentralized Administration of Attica

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

Decentralized Administration of Crete

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

Decentralized Administration of Epirus and Western Macedonia

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

Decentralized Administration of Macedonia and Thrace

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

Decentralized Administration of Peloponnese, Western Greece and the Ionian

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

Decentralized Administration of Thessaly and Central Greece

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

Decentralized Administration of the Aegean

added a link pointing to Regions of Greece

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

Category:Streets in Attica, which you created, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:Roads in Attica. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United June Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peoples' Democratic Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Democratic Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Perry. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ariha District

added a link pointing to Ariha

Nawshirwan Mustafa

added a link pointing to Komala

Pegida

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Accountability and Justice Act

added a link pointing to Reconciliation

De-Ba'athification

added a link pointing to Reconciliation

European Council on Refugees and Exiles

added a link pointing to Caritas

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

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page with 1 redlink.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Al-Manajir

added a link pointing to Ras al-Ayn

List of Kurdish-language television channels

added a link pointing to TV 10

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

November 2015 Sinjar offensive

added a link pointing to AFP

Sinjar

added a link pointing to AFP

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

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Are you kidding me? The opposite is the case: you deleted legitimate and reliably sourced content. PanchoS (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I restored my edit and removed the Hatay section. Can you please explain the relevance of the history of Hatay to this current event?--58.106.229.229 (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Tell me, what was your edit about, apart from removing relevant and sourced material? I can't remember you contributed to the article at all. PanchoS (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relevant discussion has moved to the article's talk page.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Erol Dora

added a link pointing to Status quo ante

International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties

added a link pointing to Communist Party (Turkey)

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ansar al-Sharia (Syria)

added a link pointing to Aleppo Province

Antalya Conference for Change in Syria

added a link pointing to Conference

Euphrates Volcano

added a link pointing to Aleppo Province

Fatah Halab

added a link pointing to Aleppo Province

Nahiya Azaz

added a link pointing to Salama

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

NBC News team kidnapping in Syria

added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

Newseum

added a link pointing to David Carr

Richard Engel

added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

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

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

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

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

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

The same problem continues. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc and this. 46.221.182.14 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Osama al-Nujaifi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asia News. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

All entries now nuked! Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• @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)Reply[reply]

		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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

• @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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• @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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• @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)Reply[reply]

	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)Reply[reply]

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

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• @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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hello, PanchoS. Františka Plamínková, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 19:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• @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)Reply[reply]

Hey Pancho,

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

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

On 21 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Františka Plamínková, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Františka Plamínková's activism started when she spoke out about an Austro-Hungarian law that forbade teachers from marrying and required them to be celibate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Františka Plamínková. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore: I think you're completely mistaking me here. WP:AGF is not a matter of politeness only, but of understanding, and it is outright horrible that – by assuming bad faith – you're telling me these things. If my answer is long, this is because your reproach of a supposed "bizarre insistence" is harsh and incorrect, and to settle this dispute – part of which obviously is a misunderstanding.
For the records, of course I'm not saying antisemitism is any less despicable, less significant or less murderous – in the contrary, as the Shoah unmistakably showed us and as Jew-hatred continues to show us every day. I'm just stating that it is a distinct form of bigotry, worth being listed separately rather than being subsumed under racism.
Apart from its undeniable racist component, you'll have to acknowledge that antisemitism always had and still has a myriad of century-old sources besides racial antisemitism, which was championed by the Nazis. Walter Zwi Bacharach [he] wrote: "It was Hitler who linked Jew-hatred with racism," but insists that we still "clearly distinguish between general Nazi racism and Nazi anti-Jewish racism." In the same article, he also says "It must not be forgotten that every significant ideology of the 19th century had its own brand of antisemitism." (Bacharach: Antisemitism and Racism in Nazi Ideology). In a highly relevant handbook on antisemitism, Jerome A. Chanes writes: "Although Antisemitism is related to racism, distinctions […] ought to be noted. […] The world of antisemitism represents deeper, more profound, more irrational antipathy. […] Antisemitism in its modern form clearly has racialist elements, but a distinction between antisemitism and classic racist expression ought be borne." (Jerome A. Chanes: Antisemitism: A Reference Handbook).
Now in his article "Between Jew-Hatred and Racism", Moshe Zimmermann goes much deeper into the details and the history of the relation between the two. Indeed George Mosse's statement (p. 45) can only be interpreted as antisemitism being undoubtedly racist, and Zimmermann's analysis of racist antisemitism way before 1879 (p. 48), based on the broad definition of antisemitism he discussed earlier in that article, also tends to support your position.
IMHO it is clearly established that antisemitism is an complex and distinct enough form of discrimination not to be completely subsumed under racism. Apart from that, the question needs much deeper consideration than I can provide here. As, in the end, we're talking of a rather limited practical problem here, for now my proposal would be to consistently categorize Category:Antisemitism both under Category:Racism and, separately, under the parent category of the two, such as Category:Discrimination. If you are okay with this compromise, we shouls be able to consider this issue settled. Otherwise we would have to take it to Talk:Antisemitism. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• @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)Reply[reply]
• @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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

• "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)Reply[reply]

• @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)Reply[reply]

• @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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cloning an article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]