User talk:Rathfelder

Hi! I see you're marking a number of medical articles for deletion because they are only dictionary definition sub-stubs without any longer-term promise of becoming proper articles. While I don't have a problem with that, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, could you please consider marking these pages with {{move to wiktionary}} instead, where dictionary definitions are welcomed? -- The Anome (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly will. I didn't realise I could do that. Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOE

1. Start with one category.
2. For every next category, add an extra 'propose' line manually.
3. Copy the script of the CfD template from the page of the first nominated category to the pages of the other categories, but change |1= into |1=section title. Usually the section title on the CfD page is identical to the first nomination category. For example |1=Category:Malaysian obstetricians.

Hopefully this helps? It's not super user friendly, but it's not super complicated either. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing people from the American schoolteachers category entirely, rather than recategorizing them to the state(s) where they taught? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm doing both. They dont get in a schoolteacher category unless teaching was at least part of what makes them notable. WP:NONDEF, "...not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit at Henri Kichka but think that there is a bigger issue which it might be worth clearing up around the tree of categories around Category:Holocaust survivors and Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors which do not overlap very well. There were plenty of non-Jewish political prisoners held in concentration camps who cannot be described as survivors of the Holocaust which we currently define in the article as "the World War II genocide of the European Jews". This problem is currently replicated across the sub-categories, such as Category:Politicians who died in the Holocaust and Category:Politicians who died in Nazi concentration camps (currently a sub-category). I am not sure what the solution would be.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Holocaust survivors had a note (which I have removed) which referred to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum definition:

The Museum honors as survivors any persons, Jewish or non-Jewish, who were displaced, persecuted, or discriminated against due to the racial, religious, ethnic, social, and political policies of the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945. In addition to former inmates of concentration camps, ghettos, and prisons, this definition includes, among others, people who were refugees or were in hiding.

That embraces pretty much the entire population of Eastern Europe. Far too wide for categorisation. But categorisation is imprecise. I dont see how your reversion helps.  Henri Kichka was a Buchenwald concentration camp survivor. That is fairly precise, and a subcategory of Holocaust survivors. Categorisation is heirarchical, but it doesnt follow that everything in the lowest subcategory must always meet the full definition of the highest. Rathfelder (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I do not know anything about the definition you quote, but I can quite believe that the USHMM has a remit which extends beyond the Holocaust into other forms of political and racial discrimination during World War II - this would not be particularly unusual, not least since many such centres have subsequently extended their scope to deal with the Rwandan Genocide and other unrelated post-war events (USHMM among them). However, this does not distract from the fact that boundaries of the term Holocaust is not that you have cited. It is hardly a fringe theory to distinguish between different forms of persecution carried out by the same regime (even in the same camps) and attempts to blur the two are often negationist in origin (cf the "Polocaust" saga). My issue is how to address this problem, not whether it exists. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can only talk about the articles we actually have, and they are at least 95% about Jewish people (as defined by the Nazis). There are not enough about non-Jewish people to justify breaking down the sub-categories into Jewish and not, whatever words you use. I'm really working on the concentration camp survivors and ghetto inmates. I dont think I have seen any articles which describe non-Jewish people as Holocaust survivors, and I dont think including a very small number of non-Jews into the concentration camp survivors categories undermines the point you are making. If anything I am concerned that there dont seem to be articles about the other groups who were persecuted. Rathfelder (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on this but I do not believe it to be correct. Category:Belgian people who died in Nazi concentration camps for example includes 7 names of whom only two are Jewish. However, it is a sub-category of Category:People who died in the Holocaust by nationality and Category:People who died in the Holocaust. Personally, I think the solution would be to create a series of Category:Holocaust survivors from Foo while keeping Category:Foo concentration camp survivors entirely separate and outside the Holocaust category trees. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I havent looked at the categories of people who died. They may be different. But equally Belgium is rather different from Eastern Europe. One of the main points of the subcategories as I see them is that the deal with how people survived, or not. A very different question from nationality. And nationality in Europe between 1933 and 1945 is quite problematic in itself. Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think nationality would have to refer to pre-war nation states ("Holocaust survivors from Poland [in the United States]" rather than "American Holocaust survivors", for example). @Buidhe: do you have a perspective on this? Perhaps we could open this for an RFC.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly think what we have now is a bit of a mess. But I'm not sure what we could put to an RFC. Partly its a mess because in reality its very messy. Full of contested definitions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The USHMM may use a different definition but I believe the common academic usage of "holocaust survivor" is for Jews only, restricting the word "Holocaust" to the genocide of Jews as opposed to other forms of Nazi persecution and crimes. Also, requiring RS to state someone is a holocaust survivor is also necessary per WP:V. Pre-war nationality is likely more defining than post-war. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The article, Holocaust survivors, to which we have to adhere, uses the wider definition. "the term includes anyone who was discriminated against, displaced or persecuted as a result of the policies and actions of the Nazis and their allies and, in addition to Jews who were uniquely targeted for complete annihilation, it includes those who were persecuted as a result of the Nazis' racial theories, such as the Romani people and Slavs, along with others who were seen as "undesirables" such as homosexuals, or for political reasons, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Communists."Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, the definition at Holocaust survivor has now been changed by consensus. It's clearly the categorisation now which is the issue. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It still includes " non-Jews who also experienced collective persecution under the Nazi regime " - much of the population of Eastern Europe. And most of the articles are categorised in Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. Only those without such details are in the residual Category:Holocaust survivors. Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I note you have been removing "People from City" categories for a number of Belgian articles without discussion. At Oscar Michiels, you said this was because the Category:Royal Military Academy (Belgium) faculty fitted into Category:People from Brussels and I assume the same logic underpins your other deletions. This does not follow at all. It is perfectly possible to teach at a Brussels-based institution without coming from Brussels. At very least, this kind of change to the entire purpose of the category tree should have been discussed! Please revert so it can be dealt with constructively. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Throughout the encyclopedia "People from a city by occupation" includes employees of organisations based in the city. "From" is completely ambiguous. But being born in a place is not, in itself, defining. Categories are supposed to be defining. If members of the faculty are notable that is sufficient to make them people from Brussels. Categories are heirarchical. People should not be in Category:People from Brussels if they are also in a subcategory. Please see WP:SUBCAT. Rathfelder (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but I've been editing Wikipedia for almost a decade and have never seen a "People from Foo City" category working as you claim - from may be ambiguous in some senses I accept, but it is obvious that a person does not become from a city simply by virtue of holding a post there. Again, please revert and gain consensus per WP:BRD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Most "People from City" categories have plenty of people who were not born there. It's where they did whatever made them notable that matters. See Category:Academics from London, Category:People from Los Angeles by occupation or Category:People from Berlin by occupation. I'm following a very well established policy. If you think "a person does not become from a city simply by virtue of holding a post there" perhaps you could explain how they do become from a city? Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here from Wikipedia talk:Categorization‎. In general, I have typically seen "people from city" used to classify people who were *born* in that city, and "people from city by occupation" subcategories used to split large unwieldy categories (still of people born in that city). Categories used in this way should definitely not be removed. They may also reasonably be used for people with strong non-birth associations with a city, but that does not justify their removal as birth categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Birth is not defining. By occupation from a city clearly does not imply being born there. I am not removing categories. Quite the opposite. But categories are heirarchical. WP:COPPLACE says, very clearly "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual."Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the place of birth is so clearly defining that a large number of nations use it as the primary determinant of citizenship. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And some dont. But nationality and location are not the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, the location of childhood plays a large role in determining most people's later lives, not to mention such fundamentals as the dialect that they speak. This may or may not be the same as the location of birth but most biographies don't distinguishing carefully. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it difficult to see how these considerations bear on the categorisation of the Royal Military Academy (Belgium) faculty. They were clearly people whose occupation was in Brussels. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I see you are going ahead with edits to this effect in spite of the discussion here. Regardless of the merits of your argument, this behaviour is verging on disruptive. As for your claim above, it is perfectly possible to teach in institution in City A while never living there. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To say a person is from a city does not mean that they were born there, not that they lived there. It is where they did what made them notable. I am following well established policy. If you want to change that policy this is not the place to do it. Rathfelder (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Brigade Piron. We have usually used these categories only for people who were born or grew up in a city (i.e. are from there in the usual sense of the term). Changing this to people who may have lived or worked there for a bit is fundamentally changing the whole system of categorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You may have done that, but plenty dont. Look at Category:University of California, Los Angeles faculty, a subcategory of Category:People from Los Angeles by occupation. How many of those 846 people were born in Los Angeles? There have been plenty of discussions of this issue and it it is clear, and agreed, that "from" is ambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that, as is often the case, there may often be a divide here between practice by North American editors and by European/Commonwealth editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how many of Category:Academics of the University of Oxford were born or grew up in Oxford? Plenty of editors do not understand the categorisation system, but that does not entitle you to disregard them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Insofar it is desirable at all to categorize people by populated place at all, it is completely reasonable to have Category:Academics of the University of Oxford as a subcategory of Category:People from Oxford. Biographies are interesting from an encyclopedic point of view because of special things that people did or achieved in their life. If teaching at Oxford is the primary reason why people are notable they should be in an Oxford category if any at all. While we also categorize people by place of growing up, that is less relevant - it is (usually) not what makes people special. In any case "from" is ambiguous enough to allow both place of notability and place of growing up. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Rathfelder and Marcocapelle. While users are free to apply such categories in a way that recognizes birthplace and/or place of growing up, I don't see any reason why the concept is not flexible enough to include people who lived in the city because of their occupation. A person can be "from" multiple places. I've seen it used in all these ways quite a bit in WP categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, when you withdraw a proposal that did not meanwhile gain support from any other editor, like here, it is ok to speedily close the discussion yourself. The procedure is very simple:

• insert a blank line after the section title and put this bit of script {{subst:cfd top|'''withdrawn'''}} {{subst:nac}} ~~~~ on this line
• put this bit of script {{subst:cfd bottom}} underneath the discussion
• preview whether this looks ok
• save if it looks ok
• and do not forget to remove the CfD tags from the category pages

Instructions are more elaborate on this page. Don't feel you have to do this, it's just nice if you would. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning; however, multiple nations seem to have a category 'XXX emigrants to England' which include more contemporary persons. There are also some cats for 'XXX emigrants to the *Kingdom of* England' applying before 1707. Based on what you say, seems the categorisation project might have a bit of tidying up to do. Also, what about 'English emigrants to XXX'? Eagleash (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a mess. I think it reflects English people's confused ideas about nationality. I thought I'd start with some of the smallest categories.Rathfelder (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the various subcats will need to be put up for discussion, could be best to bundle if possible. And... then there's 'expatriate (occupation) in England'. Then we come to things like '19xx establishments in England' should that be UK as well? I've seen several instances of articles being moved to the subcat. It's definitely an extended area for discussion and will probably need to be enshrined somewhere as policy; subject to consensus. Eagleash (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed its a big job, which I have been avoiding. I'm pleased to find we agree. I think it will be controversial, but I think the migration case is strong. Migration is about changing nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's one use of it... someone needs to tell all those birds flying south for the winter, that they are now South African... Google search results FWIW. Eagleash (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Category:British women academics is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:British academics, then presumably Category:Black British women academics (which you've just created) should be a non-diffusing subcat of Category:Black British academics? My head starts to spin about these, and I'm not confident enough about the syntax to just change the code myself. What do you think? As it stands, Carlene Firmin doesn't appear in any parent categories of Category:Black British women academics. Compare Category:African-American women academics, which is non-diffusing subcat of two parent cats, as are Category:Native American women academics and Category:New Zealand Māori women academics. PamD 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need male categories to justify removing the non-diffusing women categories. I think I have managed this with the various categories of singers, but there is a lot more work to be done. Its clear that very large numbers of editors do not understand non-diffusing categories, so we should try to reduce their use. And this problem is even worse when you have intersections of two sorts of non-diffusing categories. Rathfelder (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiair with Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser? It surely helps with tagging a large number of pages simultaneously. Or else I can do it for you after you created a list of categories to be tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a try. Rathfelder (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 09:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rathfelder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This was a very stupid thing to do and I am very sorry. I can only say in my defence that though I was deceitful I dont think my bad behaviour had much effect. It was confined to the backstage area of categorisation discussions. :I think I set up the Bigwig account initially because I was worried about being blocked. I have been briefly blocked, I felt unfairly, a couple of times. I also used it a few times to edit controversial pages about living people who would recognise my name. I was in those cases very careful to use reputable sources and avoid bias. I understand this to be considered legitimate. :I see I started to use it to add a voice to categorisation discussions when I felt the discussion in [[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 26#Category:Architects%20from%20Dorset|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26#Category:Architects_from_Dorset]]] was unfair, and since then I have used it several times similarly when I felt I was being personally attacked. :I have put a lot of time and effort into Wikipedia, especially since lockdown, and I think I have become too obsessive about categorisation. I do think that discussions about categorisation are confined to a rather small number of editors, some of whom seem even more obsessive than I am, but this is clearly not the way to deal with the problem, and I can only apologise for my dishonesty, though I dont actually think it had much effect. :I would like to apologise to Fayenatic london who says that I have been abrasive. I think he may be right in suggesting that I have been suffering from Wikipediholism. I enjoy the work and I think it is useful and important, but I completely accept that I broke the rule and that the rule is important. I also think I was developing delusions of self-importance and that I need to deal with them. :If I am unblocked I would propose to give up categorisation for a while and concentrate on other areas of work where conflicts are less likely to arise. I dont envisage any circumstances arising now which would give me any cause for legitimate use of a second account, so I am not asking for the bigwig account to be unblocked. Rathfelder (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Accepted per discussion below. You are indefinitely subject to a one-account restriction, and indefinitely TBanned from categories and from XfD discussions, broadly construed. Feel free to drop a note on my talk if you are unclear about the boundaries of these TBans. They may be appealed at WP:AN in no less than six months. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just categories though - you used both accounts at a fair number of AfDs, and in at least one regular article talk page discussion. It's good to see you acknowledge how inappropriate this was though, and I think the idea of staying away from categories for a while is a good one. How about this: accept a one-account restriction, and TBans from categories in general, and from deletion discussions, which you can appeal in six months at AN. That will give you a chance to find other areas to work in, Does that sound fair? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very fair. But I dont know what TBans are. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TBAN. It would mean that you can't edit about categories (no creating them, no adding articles to them etc), and you can't contribute to deletion discussions. This isn't a technical restriction, like a partial block, it's something that you agree to abide by, and if you're found breaching it then you'd end up blocked again. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Tban be more precise? What got me in trouble was working through hundreds of articles in overpopulated categories and dispersing them into sub-categories which I created. That is what I think I need to stop doing, at least for a while. But if I go back to actually working on individual articles I would like to be able to put a new article into categories, and move an individual article into a more appropriate category. And I would like to be able to object to PRODs, as above. Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me have a think about that - I'll need to have a closer look at the editing. I'm going out for a walk, but I won't leave you hanging too long. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the CU data and the edits, I would not unblock with any more narrow of a restriction than Girth Summit has proposed. Vote stacking is a big deal. I would not feel comfortable letting you back into a topic area where you did that -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation is not really a topic area in itself. I would not get involved in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, but if I cant put new articles in a category that would be a problem. Rathfelder (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not expecting to create loads of new articles. Would it work if I asked permission if I felt I needed to add or change a category? Rathfelder (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, thinking this through, I find myself in the same place as Guerillero: I think you need to step away from categorisation for the moment. That is not going to be compatible with your holding the autopatrolled perm, so I would pull that before unblocking - when you create new articles, an NPP reviewer will look at it, and they will add some categories. A topic ban from categories will mean that you can't add articles to categories, or change the categories an article is in, create new categories, or even discuss categories with other editors - essentially, you'd have to act like they're not a thing. It can be done - TBH, it's the way most editors seem to act most of the time. After six months of uncontroversial constructive editing, you could apply to have the TBan lifted, and the autoperm right reinstated.

  As for deletion - it's deletion discussions I'm worried about. I would not mind you removing PROD or CSD tags, but when it comes to any XfD discussion, you'd have to avoid it. If you wanted to save an article from deletion, you would be allowed to improve it by adding more sources. If you accept this proposal, let me know. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is perfectly fair. Thank you. I could use the talk page to make suggestions about categories? I think I need to be very clear about exactly what I can and cant do. Rathfelder (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No - you cannot mention categories on talk pages, or anywhere else. Like I said, you have to act as though they don't exist. This needn't be permanent - build up some trust again, and you can request the ban be lifted, but for now you will need to act as though nobody nobody on Wikipedia has ever had the idea of assigning articles to categories, and you haven't thought of it either. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. I will have to manage my frustrations. Rathfelder (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As you will have seen, I have accepted your unblock request. I have logged your editing restrictions at WP:Editing restrictions. They are in the 'Voluntary' section; that doesn't mean that it's optional for you to follow them, it just means that you entered into them voluntarily as conditions for being unblocked. And you are correct - this is about demonstrating that you can manage your frustrations. Let me know if you need any clarifications. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 06:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rathfelder, thank you for message to me above – apology accepted. I am also concerned about your use of the sock account to defend AFDs (1, 2, 3) for articles that you had created about medical organisations. In the first case at least (DrDoctor), you had also used the sock to expand the article. Is there anything that it would be appropriate for you to disclose at this point about your interest in this field? I don't want to be mean or to add an unnecessary further TBAN that would exclude you from an area where you may contribute beneficially, but this is a prompt in case there is anything else that you may need to come clean about. – Fayenatic London 22:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I havent any commercial interests in any of those organisations, if that is what you mean. I have been a representative of patients' interests in the NHS in Manchester for more than 30 years in various organisations, and I am particularly interested in IT applications in health - and I think Wikipedia needs to cover digital health better. I still think DrDoctor is significant enough to merit an article, but I have to accept that I lost that argument. I hope when I am able to return to such discussions I can manage not to be abrasive, because I'm sure it doesnt help to win arguments. Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying – this is helpful to dispel lingering suspicions. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually quite a public person. If you Google Martin Rathfelder you will see my past history. Rathfelder (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've requested a review of my decision to unblock your account. Please take a look at AN when you have time, I've explained why there. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 18:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been banned by community consensus per this discussion. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rathfelder,

How can you be banned? I need to look at this discussion. I'm shocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Rathfelder,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 97198 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zeze Millz and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

97198 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rathfelder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel very much discredited, which is perhaps only right. Even reading Wikipedia is quite upsetting. I would like an opportunity to reinstate myself and show that I have learned from my mistakes and wont repeat them. I still think I can make a positive contribution.

Process

I was not clear how, or indeed if, I was supposed to respond to the community consensus discussion. I didnt feel I was able to put my case.

I feel that the decision was an excessive punishment as far as the WP:BANPOL is concerned. I fully accept that I have done wrong. I recognise that and I would like an opportunity to explain how it happened and show that I have learned from my mistakes.

I had been attacked several times, generally without reasonable cause, and I have not felt much support. I dont feel that the collaborative approach is very effective. Very few projects seem to be operational. It is completely open to individual editors to be confrontational. On one occasion I was threatened with an immediate block because I was said to have committed three copyright infringements. It was true, but they were spaced over three years, were all minor, and one was in respect of material I had written myself. I was very sorry to find that Fayenatic london said that I had been abrasive. That was certainly not intended, and I have done my best to be supportive to other editors. However I have increasingly felt threatened, for example by those who express disbelief that I might not be aware of some policy which they find important, and by those who say that because I did something it should be treated with suspicion. That, of course, has been considerably exacerbated by this block.

I am asking for a more balanced approach. I have put in a lot of time and effort over the last ten years and I think I can properly say that the things I did wrong were a very small part of that. I still think I can make a positive contribution, though I would have to work hard to build up trust.

If I was allowed to return I would propose to continue to avoid categorisation altogether. I would certainly avoid the articles which got me into trouble. However I have done very little Wikipedia:BLP editting and I dont think any apart from Alex Scott-Samuel have been controversial. Biographies of living people understandably attract more attention than most other articles and I have been very careful with them.

History

I started editing in December 2006 primarily working on the history and organisation of the NHS. I did start Socialist Health Association, which was the organisation I worked for, and clearly I had a conflict of interest, although I was then very inexperienced and did not appreciate that was important. In fact the article was almost entirely historical, and I had priviledged access to its archives. I dont think there was anything controversial in it until 2019.

Mostly I worked on articles relating to British healthcare organisations. I didnt do much work on categorisation until 2013, but after 2019 I did a lot of that. The huge majority was completely uncontroversial - adding articles to existing geographical and historical categories and developing existing categorisation schemes.

I was blocked and accused of vandalism while I was creating Dewrance & Co. Ltd, without, as far as I saw it, any justification and without any opportuity to discuss it. I created User:Harry Boardman in December 2016 as an insurance policy. I havent used that since August 2019, and I lost the password so dont have access to it, which is why I didnt mention it.

I created User:Bigwig7 in August 2018 also as an insurance policy. I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel‎ in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view. He was the chair of the Socialist Health Association of which I was the only employee but what he did to me was a very small part of what drove the extensive coverage of his activities in the media. There were battles over the Socialist Health Association article but I kept out of them. Only one significant contribution was from me, and that was defended by other editors, not me. I didnt make any significant edits after 2019 because I realised this was a mistake.

I should add that User:BarleyButt is nothing to do with me, although they have edited both those articles.

I now see that what I did was dishonest. There is no reason for me to do such a thing again. I am now retired and have no employer so there is not likely to be such a stressful situation again. My user name is such that it is immediately apparent to anyone who I am. That is not generally a problem, but it was in that situation.

I am quite upset to be accused of acting "as though he's superior to the community for so long, " I dont feel superior. I am well aware that there are plenty of editors who know a lot more than I do, but I often dont feel much sense of community. There are areas where I have more experience than most editors and I have tried to be helpful, but they are mostly rather out of the way.

I would say in my defence that my actions actually had little effect. I dont think any decisions about categorisation or deletion were altered by my piling in, and my edits on those two articles were all referenced to reputable sources and survived subsequent discussions in which I was not involved. After things settled down in my personal life I decided to keep away.

I value Wikipedia and I have devoted considerable time and attention to improving it over the last few years. I have contributed quite a lot of photographs and I have made financial donations. I maintain my subscription to the Health Service Journal primarily to inform the coverage of NHS articles. I ask that the things I have done wrong should be considered in the context of the things I did which were right. I am happy to accept any restrictions which are thought appropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Appeal declined by the community (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: This is a WP:CBAN. Per WP:UNBAN it needs to be be appealed to WP:AN. Do you want this appeal copied there? Meters (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. I did find the procedure hard to understand. Rathfelder (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request for Rathfelder Meters (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Rathfelder (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cant respond to the discussion, but if the appropriate period of blocking is six months I am content to wait. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Copying your reply to AN thread. Meters (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what edit other projects means. If the idea is to resestablish trust, how can I do that if I am banned? Rathfelder (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned from English Wikipedia, but may still edit on any of the Wikimedia Foundation's other English projects (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_projects). You may also edit articles on other languages' Wikipedias if you are fluent enough. Meters (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Among those is Simple English Wikipedia, but only if you can write simply. Take note: In most cases, a user who broke the rules on another project is not blocked unless they also break the rules on the Simple English Wikipedia. They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user. [1] starship.paint (exalt) 12:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will have a try at simple English. Not strong enough in any other language. Rathfelder (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By now it is obvious that this unban request will fail. If it wasn't clear enough from others' comments, some found your unban request lacking because they felt that you did not properly acknowledge that (1) harm was clearly done, and (2) that harm was solely caused by you. Less excuses, more remorse and apology needed, next time. Good luck. starship.paint (exalt) 11:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rathfelder (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rathfelder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been banned or blocked for more than a year. During that time I have worked on the Simple English wikipedia. I have done quite a lot of work there without any conflict of interest. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. The circumstances which led me to do that will not happen again. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Wikipedia as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Wikipedia against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Wikipedia in the dispute. I wont do it again as I cant see myself being in that situation again - now being retired. I dont now see any conflicts of interest which might arise. I think I can make constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. Rathfelder (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are community-banned and therefore cannot be unblocked. Because the above is not a request to lift the ban, and does not comply with WP:GAB, I am not submitting it to the community for review. Sandstein 14:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Checkuser data shows no evidence of recent block evasion. Note this user is banned by the community, not just blocked. I'll politely suggest the above request has absolutely no chance of lifting the ban. It'd be a stretch even if the user voluntarily suggested a topic ban, as outlined in the community ban discussion. If, nevertheless, an admin sees fit to take this to the noticeboard, please ping me so I can participate in the discussion. --Yamla (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite happy to accept any restrictions thought appropriate- BLPs or health. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I just spotted this, and I hope you don't mind a comment from me. While socking is part of the problem, that in itself doesn't come close to the full reasons you were blocked. You were primarily blocked for what you used your socks to do. And you have completely failed to address that. I see no chance of an unblock until that happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation and adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Wikipedia against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I wont do it again as I cant see myself being in that situation again - now being retired. I dont really have any conflicts of interest which might arise. But I cant see how else I can address the issue. Advice would be very welcome. Rathfelder (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think accepting that you were wrong to use Wikipedia the way you did while involved in a real-life dispute should go a long way towards it. So I'd suggest maybe adding that into the unblock request itself? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much. Rathfelder (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I need to do something more to get this considered? Rathfelder (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to do as Boing! suggested and expand your unblock request. You don't need to make a new one- just edit the existing one(you need to open the edit window directly to do that- using the Reply feature won't work). 331dot (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, I'd support an unblock now. It's clear that Rathfelder was editing at a personally stressful time, and that he understands what he did wrong and won't repeat it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An account of Rathfelder's socking is at Wikipediocracy. Bigwig7 also weighed in at cfd discussions to support Rathfelder: eg this one (Apr 2021) and this one (Nov 2022). Rathfelder may have retired but will still feel unfairly outnumbered at cfds. The other sockpuppet was User:Harry Boardman; we have all 3 editing Alex Scott-Samuel. Perspicax (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am planning to avoid cfds, at least for a while. I think I got too involved in them. Rathfelder (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I think that Rathfelder's constructive edits on simplewiki show that they can be constructive without having problems, and I would support an unblock. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the decline of the block mean that it has to be addressed to the community asking for its removal, or a "lifting of the ban"? How would that be worded and submitted so Rathfelder can come back home (cook the fatted calf upon Rathfelder's return, dibs on the wishbone). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need an administrator to help me ask for my request to be unbanned. Could you help me User:Girth Summit?Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 29 § Category:Underwater diving on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century British Virgin Islands lawyers has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century British Virgin Islands lawyers has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century British Virgin Islands lawyers has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century Kipchacks has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Kipchacks has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century Kipchacks has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fylde Coast Medical Services has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphan article. Coverage is primarily local as per WP:AUD. Fails WP:ORG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Overseas Turkish organizations has been nominated for merging to Category:Turkish diaspora organizations. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Place Clichy (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 7 § Category:Establishments in Danish India by year on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 8 § Category:Seasons in Grenadian football on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Sammarinese educators has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:17th-century Greek Orthodox bishops has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century scientists from the Republic of Geneva has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:17th-century Dutch chemists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century German chemists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health care in Cyprus has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Yemenite rabbis has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century Yemenite rabbis has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Eva Health Technologies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. AusLondonder (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Camden Health Partners 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/Camden Health Partners until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century Welsh judges has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century Swedish lawyers has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Brazilian botanists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Chilean botanists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:17th-century Japanese botanists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9th-century Danish nobility has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:17th-century Romanian educators has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Filipino economists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Dominican Republic historians has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Croatian historians has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Swiss educators has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Swiss lawyers has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Swiss Roman Catholic priests has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Danish educators has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Hungarian lawyers has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century Catalan clergy has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Brazilian judges has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]