User talk:PanchoS

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]

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

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]

• 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]

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

• 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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]

• 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]

• 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]

• 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]

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]

• 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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

• 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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 944 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]