Regarding Greek football-related articles. I am an admin and a participant of the WikiProject categorization. Wikipedia guidelines are clear: "an article should be in both a category and a stub, if it is necessary", so please for future reference, please do not remove articles from categories. Short biography article should be marked (for example) by "Greece-footybio-stub" and also by crucial category "Greek footballers". Thank you! -- Darwinek 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose of categories is other than purpose of stubs. Categories like "Fooian footballers" etc. should be populated with as much articles as possible. Look at category "English footballers" for example. 99% people (or Wikipedia visitors) get their way to the articles by direct typing or through the category system. Stubs are here for editors. I am here for 2 years and can say that this is a common accepted policy here. Try to follow it. Have a nice day. - Darwinek 08:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing Euro-geo-stubs from articles and replacing them with less accurate stubs! Euro-geo-stub is used for any stub geographical articles relating to places in Europe which do not have their own geo-stub templates (places like Gibraltar, Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and the like). it is okay to add an additional stub template relating to general articles relating to the country, but the euro-geo-stub template should stay. I'm getting fed up with constantly having to revert your changes to articles! If you'd like to get involved in stub sorting,t hen we'd be happy to have you on the team at WP:WSS, but it's advisable to find out why specific templates are used first, rather than simply removing or replacing the ones that are there. Grutness...wha? 08:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the article Gimme for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Gimme satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimme. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Gimme during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion.
Your recent edit to Fivos Constantinou (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Gibraltar is not a country but a place of United Kingdom, so it must belong to UK-geo-stub. We use euro stub if there is no sub category. That's why i removed themUser:KRBN 01:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gibraltar may be a "place of United Kingdom", but it is a place in mainland Europe that does not at present have its own stub category, due to not having the required number of geography stubs. As such, its stubs are categorised as being in Europe, in the same way that geography stubs from Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos and Montserrat are categorised as being in the Caribbean (along with French and Dutch analogues such as Guadeloupe and Sint Maarten), Pitcairn's are categorised as being in Oceania, and St Helena's are categorised as being in the Atlantic. If you have a problem with that, bring it up at WP:WSS - don't simply unilaterally decide that you don't like it and move the stubs. Doing so again will be regarded as vandalism, and appropriate action will be taken. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease deleting category Transnistria. Wikipedia is not a place for political battles. The topic is valid, hence category. `'mikka(t) 04:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explanation. I suspect that you misunderstand one thing: the category:Transnistria stubs is not a normal subcategory of category:Transnistria. If someone deletes a stub notice after expanding an article, they may fail to recognize that category:Transnistria must be added. "stubs" are technical menas, not part of encyclopedic information and should be treated differently. `'mikka(t) 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Mikkalai said. Please undo your removals. Rebecca 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Transnistria is listed in the List of countries since it fulfills the criteria of that list. It doesn't mean a legal recognition. Electionworld (talk 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help me in refining the new Wikiproject:Cyprus[edit]
I created a new project and I hope you will have the time to contribute to this new effort to categorize everything relevant about Cyprus in wikipedia on this page. Thank you. Please spread the word to all φιλοι των Κυπριων.
I suppose you can include your categories and we can work from there.(UNFanatic)
Check out what I did in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cyprus. Please add or make improvements to the page. It should include Turkish-Cypriots, Armenian-Cypriots and anything that is pertinent to Cyprus...basically my goal is to have EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING about the island of Cyprus on this page. Eventually it will be the most impartial source on Cyprus in Wikipedia. I hope you will join me in this. Spread the word. (UNFanatic)
Thank you. I will edit it slowly day by day since I am busy in school but in the end it will be progress.(UNFanatic)
Image copyright problem with Image:Britishnicosia.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Map11.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Siegenicosia.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Severi3.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Mati1104ektos.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Konstantinou.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Konstantinou m.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Kyrgiakos.jpg[edit]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Category:Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus[edit]
Merhaba KRBN,
Can you please tell me why you removed my category? Is that considered POV? I though the words invasion and occupation are recognized by the UN. You do not recognize them? --Kupirijo 16:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello KRBN. Thanks for tagging a bunch of speedies. In the future, could you please leave the text there, instead of blanking it? This makes it easier for the admins to check it. Also, please be advised that "non-notable" isn't technically a speedy criteria--specifically, the article should not assert notability. I'm not sure if these football players are notable or not according to Wiki standards; I don't know much about football. --Fang Ailitalk 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I second that. I've removed the tag off Miloš Marić - a notable enough player. Please see WP:SPEEDY for speedy deletion criteria and WP:DELETE for the deletion policy. Thanks/wangi 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second wangi's comment. I was looking at the article Yves Triantafyllos, which had been blanked. Please leave the text in place. It would also be very helpful to admins if you would review the criteria for speedy deletion. If there is an article that you feel needs to be deleted, but does not meet the speedy critera, you can add a {{prod}} tag (See WP:PROD; don't forget to "subst" it.) Thanks for your help. — ERcheck (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had to remove the speedy notice from the article Daniel Tozser because all players at his level are considered notable. I noticed that the article was quite short, though. If you can expand that article or other football articles, please do so. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KBRN, Please include edit summaries in your contributions. Though not a requirement, "It is highly recommended that one fill in the edit summary field, as it makes it easier for you and your fellow contributors to understand what has changed, and is helpful when going through the history of the page." — ERcheck (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You keep on blanking / deleting articles on maps of Northern Cyprus and A&D. Please follow the Wikipedia procedures for deletion and argue why pages should be deleted. Having pages on Northern Cyprus of A&D doesn't mean any recognition of legal or de facto situation. Electionworld (talk 07:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Leonidas Kabantais (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 12:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please study the Wikipedia procedures for deleting etc. of entries, categories etc. The way you act no might be considered vandalism. Though I am a Wikipedia administrator I won't act as an administrator as far as it concerns entries and categories I created, but I ask you to respect Wikipedia policies. Electionworld (talk 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second this comment. Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. . Please do not remove the categories and stub tag from articles without clear reasoning - documented in your edit summaries. You have made numerous similar deletions. Please stop. — ERcheck (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop blanking and adding nonsense and redirecting[edit]
Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Leonidas Kabantais, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — ERcheck (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Loukas Mavrokefalidis, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — ERcheck (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs) 10:28, 24 August 2006 UTC
Do not vandalize Maps of Northern Cyprus; A&D etc.[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. - ElectionworldTalk? 08:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your pattern of edits is unchanged since the August 21 warnings. You have been nominating for speedy deletes (without adding a reason), deleting content with your speedy delete tagging, and unilaterally making redirects (with blanking of content). Deleting content is unacceptable. There are very few circumstances in which deleting content is appropriate, such as in the case of personal attacks and obvious vandalism (only revert that vandal adds).
My suggestion is that you review Wikipedia policies and procedures — some of which I've already pointed out.
Second, read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You have an obvious interest in Cyprus-related articles. However, if you are interested in making changes such as the you have made, they should first be discussed on the article's talk page AND consensus should be reached. Also, please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Continued violation may result in being blocked from editing, without further warning.
"First of all, I have explained the reasons for the deletions. So don't blame me for such things. I have checked some links u showed me and I checked some categories with articles for speedy deletion. There are several articles which are on deletion and you say nothing to those users that put them on speedy deletion. One example is User:Merope, who puts freely articles for deletion.
As about your friend User:TruthbringerToronto, his problem for putting an article on deletion is not just with me. He did that to many articles o deletion by other users that they can't be included in encyclopedia because they are so USELESS and he insists to revert them from deletion. Just check his Talk page (TruthbringerToronto) And the most impressive on that is that he HAS NO IDEA ABOUT THOSE ARTICLES. That person is from Canada annd sure has no idea about most of the articles, especially unknown people in Greece and Cyprus. I think he is the wikipedia vandalist.
I want also to make another question what can I do if I disagree with the creation of a category? sure not for speedy deletion I guess. Then what else I can do on that?"
KRBN (Talk | 00:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across a few of the articles that you nominated for speedy deletion and found that you had removed the content as well as tagging them. It adds extra work for administrators to review articles with speedy tags if the content has been removed. It was not "blame" when I asked you not to delete content. Since it seemed to be something that you had been doing as a matter of course, it is appropriate that adminstrators point out the problem. It was the blanking that brought you notice — and assuming good faith, it seemed that you might be unaware of acceptable practices with respect to speedy deletions. This is why it was pointed out to you various reading material.
The second issue, which was identified by a myself and another admin, was that the reasons you gave for deletion did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. You were asked to review them. Wikipedia has three basic avenues for deletion of articles that are inappropriate content. The speedy delete category has very stringent criteria. This allows adminstrators to delete articles meeting those criteria without going through the 5 to 7 day process of either PROD or AFD. The criteria A7 is only for cases where no notabiity is asserted. If an editor feels that the asserted notability is insufficient for an article, one of the other two processes should be used.
As far as "I explained the reasons for the deletions", I do not recall seeing any explanation. Nonetheless, it was pointed out to you that deletions were inappropriate — which you did not pay heed to. After being provided with warnings, you continued to delete content. Deleting content and/or persisting in actions for which you have been warned is considered to be vandalism. Vandalism with explanation is still unacceptable.
The warnings and guidance you have received are independent of other user's actions.
I'm not sure I understand the other issues that you raised.
Other articles up for speedy deletion: There are many articles up for speedy deletion. It is acceptable for editors to nominate articles. There are some editors who spend time contributing to Wikipedia by keeping a watch for inappropriate articles and nominating them for the appropriate type of deletion.
If you have an issue with a particular editor, please try to work it out with the editor. I'm not sure what you were implying by the phrase "your friend User:TruthbringerToronto". Editors are free to make requests of other editors and admins; perhaps Truthbringer noticed that I'd left a note on your talk page and seeing that I was online at the time decided to ask me to look into your deletions.
As far as nominating categories for deletion, there is a process analogous to the AFD process — WP:CFD.
I have noticed that you are removing categorization from article pages. One example, Eleni Ioannou, you deleted the Category:Greek sportspeople from the article with an edit summary comment "sucategory" — from which your reasoning is unclear. What did you mean"?
The notes from various editors and administrators trying to point out problems with your edits were done to help you become a better editor and contributor. It is expected that you take heed.
Please note: You are still continuing with your pattern of nominating for speedy deletion and blanking at the same time. With the warnings you have received, you cannot say you were unaware that it was unacceptable behavior. You will be blocked from further editing if this persists.
— ERcheck (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I insist that I have explained the reasons for deletions. I may did vandalism without understanding it but at least I came to ask you what to do. However I was suprised for you for lying that I continued puting articles for deletion. Your aim is not to not vandalizing rather than to block me. Because I HAVE 6 DAYS TO PUT ARTICLES FOR DELETION.
KRBN (Talk | 08:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I would like you to understand that I have taken the time to write you long notes with extensive explanations and guidance as I feel that you may be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. It seems only that you could benefit from a better understanding of the policies, processes and guidelines of Wikipedia.
Second, please do not accuse me of lying about your posts. Wikipedia captures edit histories. After warning messages on August 21, on August 22, you nominated Athanasios Kostoulas for speedy deleting, while blanking the content.
Finally, as far as explaining deletions, I'm not sure if you are referring to your deletion of content or to your nomination of articles for deletion. Blanking of content while tagging is not acceptable. As far as providing explanation for your nomination for deletion, etc., a comment should be made in the article's or category's edit summary box. With rare exceptions, you have not done this.
I do not understand your final two sentences:
"Your aim is not to not vandalizing rather than to block me."
"Because I HAVE 6 DAYS TO PUT ARTICLES FOR DELETION."
To make it clear, my aim is not to block you, but rather to help you to understand issues with your edits.
