User talk:Wwikix

Welcome!

Hello, Wwikix! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Ciao,Wwikix!

Removing categories[edit]

I believe that you are removing categories from towns and municipalities in the Netherlands that shouldn't be removed. What you are doing, at least in some cases, is similar to removing the article France from Category:Countries in Europe presumably because it is already in the subcategory Category:France. I believe both the article and the category France should be in Countries in Europe. This style of categorization is common practice on the English Wikipedia, but may be different for Wikipedia in other languages. – Editør (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes[edit]

Hello Wwikix. When you year spans on templates like {{Israeli Health Ministers}}, please make sure you use the correct dash, i.e. – instead of -. Thanks, Number 5 7 14:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata categorieën[edit]

Please add your newly created category's to Wikidata. Kind regards,

NL: Zou je je nieuwe categorieën (zoals Categorie:Nijkerk) kunnen toevoegen aan Wikidata, door ze te koppelen aan de Nederlandse categorie? Ik heb dit al gedaan voor Nijkerk en Dalfsen. Met vriendelijke groeten Coldbolt (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marjolein Faber and edit summaries[edit]

Hi Wwikix, I saw you moved Marjolein Faber-van de Klashorst to Marjolein Faber. Both the Senate and Parlement.com websites list her under Faber-van de Klashorst so I was wondering why you had changed it. You have not provided a reason in the edit summary. I notice on your edits to the Template:Members of the Senate of the Netherlands, 2011–2015 you did not provide edit summaries either. Please do fill in useful edit summaries, otherwise other editors might be left wondering why you changed something. Regards. Crispulop (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch Wikipedia calls her Marjolein Faber, and also the press. Wwikix (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regular name per press coverage is fine ofcourse. Crispulop (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves[edit]

Hello Wwikix. Please don't move pages from "Ministry of XYZ" to "Ministry of XYZ (Israel)" unless there is another country with the same named ministry - this is unnecessary disambiguation. Thanks, Number 5 7 14:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It just fits with the other Israeli ministries in the Category:Government ministers of Israel etc. and maybe there will be future ministries of other countries with the same name. And you can see at once it is an Israeli ministry. Wwikix (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) It's unnecessary disambiguation, (b) Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball and (c) the first sentence of the article states that the ministry is in Israel. Number 5 7 15:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you move articles, could you please fix any links on templates for the page (e.g. {{Israeli Cabinet}}). Cheers, Number 5 7 11:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Wwikix (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dow Chemical Company[edit]

Could you please explain why you added the category "Buildings and structures in Zeeland" to the Dow Chemical Company article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest plant of Dow in the Benelux is situated in Terneuzen in the province of Zeeland. Wwikix (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Almere, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page D66. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alfred Lecerf[edit]

Hello, Wwikix. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Alfred Lecerf, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Alfred Lecerf to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Crystallized C (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References added. Wwikix (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

parent categories and subcategories[edit]

Hi Wwikix, I see you've been categorizing monasteries in Belgium by province, which is great, but there is no need to add a Belgian category as well when both monastery by order by country and the province category you add are subcategories of Category:Christian monasteries in Belgium. Grimbergen Abbey, for example, belongs to Category:Christian monasteries in Flemish Brabant and Category:Premonstratensian monasteries in Belgium; in the category tree both these are subsets of Category:Christian monasteries in Belgium, so that (grand)parent category doesn't need to be there too. If you want to be able to see all Christian monasteries in Belgium on one page, then the List of Christian monasteries in Belgium is the place to look. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the monasteries are also categorized on a national level you can see at once which monasteries in Belgium have a Wikipedia article. Wwikix (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not how categories necessarily work, and why we also have the List of Christian monasteries in Belgium (which through redlinks immediately tells you not only which have an article, but also which don't, and is so a much more useful tool for building new content). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching in a category is easier than searing in a long list. Wwikix (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Christian monasteries removed from the Category:Christian monasteries in Belgium. Wwikix (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow only just spotted this. Thanks! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week[edit]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Editor Wwikix has not, as yet, taken the time to create a User page. Perhaps it is because they are too busy adding information and working on improving hundreds of articles and categories. Beginning in February of this year, Wwikix has amassed almost 14000 edits with 77% in article pace and 17% in categories. His top edited pages are for lists of cities, towns and villages in the Netherlands and neighboring Belgium. He moves pages when necessary and works at the tedious task of adding categories (churches, monuments, railway stations, windmills, etc.) to towns and small villages of the Low Countries. Having created some of the articles that Wwikix visits and improves, I have first-hand experience of his effort to increase the amount of worthwhile information available to enhance our visitors enjoyment and knowledge.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wwikix (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the benefits of facilitating the Eddy award is that I get to meet editors like you. Too many veteran editors spend too much time at the various drama-laden pages of Wikipedia. They rarely take the time to see the hard working editors that fly under the radar of contention and strife. Editors like you are the heartbeat of Wikipedia. Thanks for all you do. Happy New Year. Buster Seven Talk 17:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and the same to you. Wwikix (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

Hello,

Category:Former synagogues in Croatia should not be a subcategory of Category:Destroyed landmarks in Croatia: some former synagogues (e.g. Bjelovar Synagogue) were not destroyed. GregorB (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...so Category:Destroyed landmarks in Croatia needs to be restored where appropriate. GregorB (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wwikix (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was very quick! GregorB (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dormition Abbey[edit]

Hello, could you please explain why do you insist on removing Category:Christian monasteries in Israel from this article? The Abbey is in Israel, so I think it should belong to this category. Thank you. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the new Category:Christian monasteries in Jerusalem, which is a subcategory of the Category:Christian monasteries in Israel by city. Wwikix (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Why are you changing my edits back without an edit summary? I've just ordered the categories of a bunch of articles that you have been scrambling the order of for no apparent reason. – Editør (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the categories by geographical division, that gives a better survey. Wwikix (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category renaming[edit]

Hello Wwikix. If you want to rename a category, you must go through the WP:CfD process. Please do not rename categories simply by creating a new one and changing all the articles to the new category. Thanks, Number 5 7 16:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The renaming was according to the other categories in the Category:Government ministers of Israel. Wwikix (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. Any renaming of categories must be done through that process. If it's to bring it in line with other category names then you can use the speedy option. However, simply creating a new category and moving everything into it should not be done. Number 5 7 16:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it was to bring it in line with other category names. Wwikix (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again: All category renaming must be done through the WP:CFD process, including bringing category names in line with others. There are no exceptions. Number 5 7 17:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you can show tyhatr it is in prder to bring the cateogry in line with the others, it can go the "speedy rename route" under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current nominations - see C2C mentioned higher up on the page. This still means that you tag the page for renaming and list it there, not go and rename it on your own. The detailed instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Od Mishehu - I did mention the speedy option above, and this is still part of the CfD process). Number 5 7 20:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(57, I figured a more detailed set of instructions, including links to the official page, would be helpful). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agriculture ministers of Israel[edit]

Please don't unilatterally rename categories by copying the content and transferring the articles. In stead, please use WP:Categories for Discussion, where the issue will be decided through consensus of users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Wwikix (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

What exactly is your objective in editing so many categories so rapidly? What changes are you making, are they necessary or cosmetic? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary-cosmetic. Wwikix (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women's sports in Sweden[edit]

Wwikix, Category:Women's sports in Sweden has an edit history and the category has been around a lot longer than Category:Women's sport in Sweden. Please move all of the categories you reassigned back to their original category. This is exactly the kind of miscategorization I was concerned about. There was no reason to move all of these subcategories into a new category. I'll now check for other incidents like this in your contribution history. Please do not edit so disruptively. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be merged with Category:Women's sport in Sweden. Wwikix (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true, but the way to decide this is by taking it to CFD, not by unilaterally changing it. See these 3 edits how to request it - alternatively, you could make a one-way merge request, such as these edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop rearranging categories[edit]

Please stop doing edits which are nothing but rearranging of the categories on the page, such as this edit and this one. Such edits are rarely useful, and make it harder to follow the history of the page's categorization. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of persons are alphabetically arranged and this is useful. Wwikix (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for who? I'd prefer them arranged more by topic than by the first few characters, and I'm sure many others agree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The alphabetical arrangement is the proper way and more convenient because of the large numbers of categories. Wwikix (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me where this policy is written? And if you remove my question without answering it, I'll take this discussion to a more public venue. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this is the policy. Besides it is also better to do this in many cases because of the very often large amount of categories, it gives an easy alphabetical survey. Wwikix (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Instead of adding a sort variable , like +, to articles in Category:Israeli people it would make more sense to make that category a container category, like Category:Israeli women for example, by removing any individuals from it, and then remove the sort key from the remaining articles. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a provisional measure until all individuals have been removed. Wwikix (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm FoCuSandLeArN. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Category:Historical eras has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electric power transmission systems by continent has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Electric power transmission systems by continent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:People who died on their birthday[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:People who died on their birthday, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please don't create categories that have been deleted previously at WP:CFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know/see that this category had been deleted. And it had been deleted in 2006, ten years ago. Wwikix (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. gidonb (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removing items after | in categories[edit]

do you realise why a name of an item is placed like that? it is so that the order of the categories when listed is in correct order, by removnig them you are not helping JarrahTree 09:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not right, when removed it orders itself. Wwikix (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the sheer volume of what you are removing, please show where in policy/practice, why you claim to be right JarrahTree 09:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see Category:Economy of Africa. Wwikix (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why then is the sheer volume against you - there are millions of articles in wp en with default sort - why do you think you are right? JarrahTree 09:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category and show me the section that say removing default sort, and or names in categories, is of benefit to anyone, thanks JarrahTree 09:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop, and unless you can come up with a positive affirmation from a policy or practice page that says what you are doing is of benefit, I would consider your editing to be in bad faith. cheers JarrahTree 09:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When articles aren't sorted correctly of aren't sorted at all, it is a benefit when sorted with an empty space after | . Wwikix (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youre telling me a standard process that has a policy clearly stated (in the link above) is wrong? JarrahTree 09:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be wrong if it isn't performed in the right way. And it isn't necessary to use names after | because without it is sorting itself in the proper way. Wwikix (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flora categories[edit]

For the distribution of plants, we use the WGSRPD categories, as explained at= Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. There needs to be a complete hierarchy following the WGSRPD definitions. You have messed up this hierarchy by your recent changes. I will roll back your changes, since fixing them one-by-one is going to be too time-consuming. Please don't meddle until you understand what you are doing. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again: please stop editing flora distribution categories until you have a consensus for the changes you are making. I suggest you start a discussion at WT:PLANTS. The category hierarchy for flora distributions follows the WGSRPD, as I noted above, and has been decided on after considerable discussion and work by plant editors. You need a consensus to make changes. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the Category:Flora of Europe by region? It's the same as the Category:Flora of Africa by region and the Category:Flora of Asia by region. Wwikix (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the Category:Flora of the United States can also be categorized in the Category:Flora of North America because the US are primarily situated in North America. Elsewhere the US are likewise categorized. Wwikix (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a useful category, there's nothing wrong with it. What's wrong is removing the category Category:Flora of Europe. There is supposed to be a precise parallel between the WGSRPD hierarchy and the flora distribution category hierarchy. The WGSRPD hierarchy is:

1 Flora of Europe

10 Flora of Northern Europe

11 Flora of Middle Europe

12 Southwestern Europe

13 Southeastern Europe

14 Eastern Europe

So there should be a precisely parallel category hierarchy:

Category:Flora of Europe

Category:Flora of Northern Europe

Category:Flora of Central Europe = Flora of Middle Europe

Category:Flora of Southwestern Europe

Category:Flora of Southeastern Europe

Category:Flora of Eastern Europe

There can be additional parallel categories, but this hierarchy is the only one labelled as Category:Flora by distribution categories that follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions.

As it happens, I'm sceptical that the "by region" categories are useful, but if they are, they are additional, not inserts or replacements.

In addition, note that the category hierarchy is strict; as regards geography and plant distributions, the United States is not wholly in 7 North America, since Hawaii is in 6 Pacific. So it's wrong to put the Flora of the United States into any WGSRPD category. If you want to discuss this, we started at User talk:Erutuon#Categorization of the Flora of the United States.

I'm very happy to discuss all this, but please stop until there is a consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your edit history[edit]

in all good faith - your edit history still exhibits a manner that suggests you are not sure what you are doing... take care!! specially as you seem disinterested in others advice and cautions JarrahTree 13:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure what I am doing but sometimes it takes several steps to achieve your goal. And it isn't a matter of desinteresting but sometimes it's better to perform several adaptations. Wwikix (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yeah what are your goals? Pyrusca (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a very valid question as there are parts of your edit history that show no or little understanding of how wikipedia works JarrahTree 22:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JarrahTree, I want to bring your attention to the post below this one. Also, Fayenatic london, I suggest looking at some of the posts on this talk page. its filled with numerous complaints about his category edits since the beginning of his 44k edits. Pyrusca (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrusca: This edit won't have notified JarrahTree or Fayenatic london; but this one will. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Process for renaming categories[edit]

If you think that a category should be renamed, please use the process at WP:Categories for discussion, rather than emptying the existing categories yourself without discussion. This is considered an "out-of-process" move.

Although it can take a few days to reach consensus, it should be less work for you in the end, as the member pages will be moved by an automated (bot) process.

The nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 22#Category:Ciney Villages should have been started as a proposal for renaming & merger to your proposed name, not deletion after doing the work yourself. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

I see that you were already given the above advice at least twice in March. Why do you persist in editing so impatiently, independently, and without seeking consensus of other editors? I started a discussion at Category talk:Ciney Villages but, instead of expressing your opinion in that discussion, you acted on your own opinion immediately.

I also note that your account has already been blocked on nl-wiki[1] for six months following consideration by the Arbitration Committee.

Please start to comply immediately with due process on English Wikipedia. If you continue to ignore accepted processes such as CFD then you may well be blocked here as well, for WP:disruptive editing.

Please also do engage with editors when they seek to discuss things with you. We can see that your written English language is not very good, but please do reply more promptly and more fully anyway.

It would probably be helpful if you would put a WP:Babel box on your user page stating your level of English language, and your native language. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am acting in good faith. I thought I did the right thing by making the Category:Sub-municipalities of Ciney and proposing for deletion the Category:Ciney Hamlets and Category:Ciney Villages. Wwikix (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it good faith to ignore the advice on en-wiki process given by user:Od Mishehu above, here and here? – Fayenatic London 12:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's old stuff. I'm not doing this kind of things anymore. Wwikix (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did exactly that with Ciney Villages. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion. Because of your remarks on the talk page of the Category:Ciney Villages I decided to make the Category:Sub-municipalities of Ciney and to propose the Category:Ciney Hamlets and Category:Ciney Villages for deletion. I thought I was doing the right thing and was surprised to read your negative reaction. Wwikix (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain[edit]

When I asked you some time back about why you were removing items relating to sort, you provided no link or clear quote from any of WP:MOS pages as to why you were removing sort items in categories.

You are now working with * items. Please, for your sake, provide a diff, example, policy - that substantiates/validates your current edits. Not your own personal opinion. JarrahTree 09:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's better to remove texts. See this example: Category:Dams in India by state or territory in Category:Buildings and structures in India by state or territory. Wwikix (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal unsubstantiated opinion, as is most of your recent edits in changing category sort format. Please offer a specific english wikipedia policy or diff. where your modifications can be established. Dank u. JarrahTree 14:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there necessarily be a Wikipedia policy or guideline to act like I did? It is just common sense to do so in order to get articles properly categorized. Wwikix (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

take a step back. Relax. You're edit rate is enormous. It would help to explain to others what are you doing, so you can avoid messages like these. Pyrusca (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, however 'removing' things from category pages in relation to sorting should have a point of reference, to date we have been given nothing. Common sense does not necessarily come from your edits to date, or for that matter what you say. JarrahTree 23:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

who was that directed to?Pyrusca (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

read it - you (Pyrusca) are not talking about common sense - it was addressed to Wwikix. You should create a separate thread if you are that sensitive JarrahTree 01:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing this to get things easier/better categorized. Wwikix (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing. Categorization on wikipedia is in line with the requirements as designated on the appropriate pages and guidelines. Easier/better is not what categorization is about. It is specifically in the context of what is explained and required at Wikipedia:Categorization and does not diverge/deviate/divert from those guidelines or related linked items. JarrahTree 15:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those guidelines etc. aim at easier/better categorization. So what I am saying is in line with the guidelines etc. Wwikix (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, you have not once on this talk page indicated which or where the guidelines are or that you know what they are JarrahTree 09:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK[edit]

[2] you have removed a valid category ? why? JarrahTree 09:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations of the Americas has already been categorized. Wwikix (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-cat does not indicate why, in this cat you are moving cat due to the presence of a child and parent cat being present - it would probably help if you indicated the 'why' of an action JarrahTree 09:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the Category:Organizations of the Americas has been categorized, it isn't necessary also to categorize Category:Organizations based in North America and Category:Organizations based in South America in the Category:Organizations by continent. Wwikix (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the sort of thing that should go in the edit summary, you might put

rm [[Category:Organizations by continent]], parent of [[Category:Organizations of the Americas]], per [[WP:SUPERCAT]]

where "rm" means "remove", see WP:ESL#Removal of text. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Jamie Tubers. An edit that you recently made to Category:Harmattan seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category TOC[edit]

Please do not remove {{CategoryTOC}} from large categories such as you did here [3] as this template assists navigation. Tim! (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of countries in Polynesia[edit]

Hello, Wwikix. I noticed that you've been adding both the categories "Countries in Polynesia" and "Countries in Oceania" to the articles and categories for Polynesian nations. We generally don't place something in both a category and one of its sub-categories. In these cases, the articles and categories should not appear in the parent category (which is Oceania). I've reverted a few of your changes, but there are quite a few more. Please remove the Oceania categories that you've recently added. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't right. Articles about countries are placed both in the parent-category and in the sub-category, e.g. Category:South Asian countries and Category:Countries in Asia. Wwikix (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On what are you basing your understanding that there is an exception to the guideline at WP:Categorization#Categorizing pages? Largoplazo (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many times articles are categorized both in parent categories and sub categories. It gives an overall view, both in the parent category and in the sub category. Wwikix (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people do things on Wikipedia without realizing that they are unnecessary or unhelpful or out of conformance with the guidelines. An appropriate reaction is to fix the problems in articles that have them rather than replicating them in yet more articles.

If there was a consensus that giving "an overall view" were a desirable goal, then the guideline wouldn't say what it says because that would contradict the consensus rather than supporting it. The guideline says don't do this. So please don't do this. Largoplazo (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's better to make exceptions. Every country has been categorized in this way. Wwikix (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes it's better to make exceptions" doesn't provide a justification for making this exception, or even clarify what the scope of this exception would be. I see no reason why countries would be a special case. In addition, such exceptions need to be made by consensus, not just because they make sense to you. Now, if you are trying to create a consensus, "sometimes it's better" isn't going to explain to anyone why it's better and, so, why they should agree with you.

And when you say every country has been categorized this way, is it because somebody decided to make it that way, whether in disregard of or lacking awareness of the rule? Because, in that case, it needs to be fixed on every country. Largoplazo (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wwikix and @Largoplazo: You may have already been pinged on this, but there's a discussion on this question here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was doing the right thing by categorizing countries in this way. Wwikix (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Will you be undoing your changes? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to maintain a categorization of the countries in both the parent category and the sub category for reasons of an overall view. For example, the Category:East African countries shows the countries belonging to this region, the Category:Countries in Africa shows the countries of entire Africa. I guess this will be very convenient to the users. Wwikix (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's better for you to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines if you're going to edit here, especially when they make it clear that a consensus was reached that specifically disagrees with you. Largoplazo (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if my proposal is contradictory to those guidelines. My proposal concerns two different things, one specifically referring to a region, an other to an entire continent. Wwikix (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are specific guidelines in categorization policies about not mixing parent and child categories,

One small problem, the operative response from you always is I think, and an overall view - which basically ignores more experienced editors reflections on your actions, here or at the project page. There has never on this talk page ever been an acknowledgement or reference to any established policy or precedent as to how categorization works on english wikipedia. If you were to move beyond your personal focus, and acknowledge others points of view outside of your idea, there might be less concern about your massive re-arrangement of english wikipedia categories.

I have seen no explanation anywhere as to your personal 'overall view' or what that exactly means JarrahTree 10:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. For example, when the countries are removed from the Category:Countries in Africa, you can only find these countries by clicking on the Category:Countries in Africa by region and succeedingly you have to search in one of the sub categories concerning the various regions of Africa. That isn't a very convenient way of looking for African countries. Wwikix (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This simply confirms my concerns expressed throughout this talk page, and at the category talk page, I just hope that someone other than myself, who has much more patience and time is able to actually get a response to something like show me the policy or precedent rather than an assertion of personal belief as opposed to standard practice. JarrahTree 10:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is true of every single situation throughout this project where a page is associated with a category but not with a parent or grandparent or great-grandparent of that category. And yet the guideline calls for articles not to be listed under multiple categories in a parent-child hierarchy. It follows, therefore, that the consideration to which you are attaching a great deal of importance (being able to see all members and submembers of a category in one place) was rejected as an overriding consideration, in favor of other considerations, of which you are unaware or that you are unimpressed by, that led to the guideline saying what it says. You are basically saying, "I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'm going to do what I think is best." That doesn't fly. Largoplazo (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, I thought (and still think) I was doing the right thing and was just following the example of how African countries had been categorized. Wwikix (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JarrahTree 14:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink

October 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "indefinitely" does not mean "infinitely". You are blocked until you explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, and where in our policies, guidelines, or local project pages you find a warrant for the many, many edits, none of which come with an explanation, you have been making. I asked you to stop making these edits while they were being discussed; I note that you found the time to return to these edits but didn't think it worth your while, maybe, to address the community's concerns. (Correct me if I'm wrong; I think "Nonsense, very exaggerated" is all you had to offer.) Until you do, I will not unblock you.
You obviously cannot comment on the ANI page, so I suggest you place your response here. I and others will be watching.
In addition, I just saw the thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories (this being the last edit in the thread), and it is abundantly clear that you are making the edits that you are making without consensus. It is possible that you can get consensus for them, but you cannot make what are said to be drastic changes without any consensus at all--worse, there are at least three editors who object to them. In the interest of this collaborative project, I am rolling back your recent edits. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the rolling back of my recent edits, they are constructive edits. Wwikix (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't constructive. This edit was determined to be unhelpful. Pyrusca (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. Wwikix (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is essential. If all you have to offer is "exaggeration" and then an order to revert, your detractors--who argue you are incapable of collaborating--may well have their point proven by you. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am editing is because I think it's helping Wikipedia being better organized. And I don't think they are really contradictory to how the English Wikipedia works, but sometimes one has to improvise to get things properly done, which is in the spirit of the guidelines. Wwikix (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I comment, I just undid this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Vertebrates_of_S%C3%A3o_Tom%C3%A9_and_Pr%C3%ADncipe&diff=prev&oldid=745501139 one. The accent mark is part of name. I don't see any how that would be improved by replacing with the standard character, aside from plainful distaste for the region or just "making it easier" for the keyboard.

It's just a matter of sorting articles. Wwikix (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the "spirit of the guidelines"? Pyrusca (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's "in the spirit of the guidelines" only if "in the spirit of the guidelines" means "in direct contradiction to the applicable guideline". Wwikix, can you explain how assigning articles to both a category and one of its subcategories is not contradictory to a guideline that says not to do that? Largoplazo (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote before, when for example the countries are removed from the Category:Countries in Africa, you can only find these countries by clicking on the Category:Countries in Africa by region and succeedingly you have to search in one of the sub categories concerning the various regions of Africa. That isn't a very convenient way of looking for African countries. Wwikix (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as I wrote before, the guideline makes it crystal clear that that isn't the overriding consideration. All you're doing is repeating (incessantly) why you've been violating the guidelines rather than convincing anybody that you're conforming to them. "The priorities underlying the guideline are inconsistent with my priorities, therefore I'm going to do what I want and ignore the guideline no matter what anyone else thinks about it" isn't a persuasive argument. Largoplazo (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fayenatic london would like to say something. Pyrusca (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who, me?

IMHO, Wwikix is insolent, arrogant, and very poor at collaborating, to the point where he was blocked on his native nl-wiki, and the same has finally happened here. He is usually unwilling or unable to explain his reasons for his edits, either in the edit summary or in discussions. This may be due in part to a low standard of written English.

However, apart from all that, when I come across his edits, I can work out for myself the reason for them, and I grudgingly admit that many of them do improve Wikipedia.

In the cases mentioned above, it was helpful of Wwikix to remove the first diacritic from the sort key "São Tomé" on the vertebrates category, so that it would sort under Sa rather than after Sz. I also agree with what Wwikix says about the Countries of Africa categories – the region category is a non-diffusing sub-category of the continent category, and ideally should be tagged as such.

This is why I have not been actively monitoring Wwikix's edits or talk page.

My advice to Wwikix, if he is unblocked, would be to study the en-wiki policy pages and learn the shortcuts so that he can refer to e.g. WP:SUBCAT, WP:DIFFUSE or WP:SORTKEY in his edit summaries and discussions. – Fayenatic London 19:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if, upon consideration, some or most or all of the edits were valid and even valuable, it's still a matter of following procedure to get there, correct? As in, first of all, having a discussion to establish a consensus as to which categories not already marked as non-diffusing categories are, indeed, non-diffusing categories. Then, tagging them as non-diffusing categories. And, above all, when any issues along these lines are raised, pausing one's unilateral activities and working to reach a consensus in one's favor and then following the preliminary steps before continuing on. Because, just look at so many of the sections preceding this on on this talk page. I think enough people have expressed their frustration with Wwikix that, at the least, one can say that his style of working here has created a lot of disruption. Largoplazo (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. See also #Process for renaming categories above for an example that I did know about – and where Wwikix pointedly refused to admit being at fault. I am not arguing that Wwikix should not have been blocked, just explaining why (despite that one) I did not watch or take part in such discussions. (I only came here today at Pyrusca's request.) – Fayenatic London 19:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: You say (in regard to this edit) that "it was helpful of Wwikix to remove the first diacritic from the sort key "São Tomé" on the vertebrates category, so that it would sort under Sa rather than after Sz". This is no longer the case: since a MediaWiki upgrade in August-September this year (see archived WP:VPT thread), diacritics are ignored in category sorting, so "São" sorts after "San" and before "Sap". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Ah, thanks for the update. In that case, changing the sort key was harmless and of no effect. But if Wwikix had explained his objective, someone could have advised him that that part of his edit was now unnecessary and pointless. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wwikix, I can see the logic in what you are trying to do, and you might even persuade me in an RFC on the subject, but that isn't the point. When we have an existing consensus, everyone is expected to work within that consensus until a new consensus is formed. A written policy/guideline is nothing more than the documentation of consensus. It seems you are claiming that WP:IAR applies (my favorite policy), but IAR is about singular applications, doing one thing because the rules don't fit a singular situation so you just do what makes sense. Instead, you are ignoring the community wholesale, which is disruptive. If everyone did that, the whole place would be a warring, fighting mess. None of us agrees with every policy and guideline. In some cases, we start RFCs to change them, or failing that, we live with it or avoid areas where that policy is at play. Treating Wikipedia like your own sandbox, however, isn't one of the options. Until you express an sincere willingness to work within existing guidelines, I don't see how any admin is going to unblock you. It isn't required you like or agree with the guideline, only that you respect and follow consensus until it changes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I wrote WP:Communication is required for situations like this. You are obligated to stop an activity and discuss it once it is obvious that many people take issue with it. A single comment at ANI is insufficient. Wikipedia is a community, and yes, communication is sometimes required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request unblocking[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not agree with the accusation that my edits are disruptive. As a rule I try to edit in the way things are done at the English Wikipedia. Of course I am not perfect and sometimes I have to improvise to get things properly done. From my own experience I can say that users tend to accuse to quickly of things like e.g. editing against the guidelines. This kind of allegations are made to easily and the accusations are exaggerated as if I am constantly disregarding guidelines, convention etc. Wwikix (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Inability to understand the reason for your block is a compelling reason not to unblock. You have been given several days within which to modify your request, and have not done so.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:05, 29 October 2016 (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.

I'm not going to review this, but I would like to see you given more time to modify your unblock request, which is very likely to get declined as written. One of the big problems you have is refusing to communicate properly when someone has challenged your edits. You do answer with short answers like "I don't agree" but that is a far cry from actual dialog explaining your edits. The other thing I think you need to take to heart is the concept of "policy". The written policies are not the final say here, consensus is. In fact, the written policies are nothing more than a convenient documentation of consensus. In all circumstances, consensus is the rule of the day because policies are changed to reflect that consensus. Often, policies even seem to contradict each other. They are handy written guides, but it is still consensus that guides us. This is why when many people say you are doing something wrong, it is likely you are doing something wrong and you need to stop it and discuss it. Not discuss it a little while you keep doing it, but stop first. I've explained this all before, but it merits repeating since it is at core of the issue here.

If you want to get unblocked, complaining that the other guy is wrong never works. Had I reviewed this unblock request, I would declined it, which is why I'm choosing to help you instead of reviewing it. If you want to get unblocked, you need to reflect on why you got blocked and figure out a way to comply with the expectations moving forward. Then you need to communicate how you will do just that in your unblock request. Your activity was disruptive, even if it seems useful. It was disruptive because it is against the consensus on MOS, meaning someone has to go in and revert all of it. You might disagree with most people and say these should be in multiple categories, but that is the point: a consensus disagrees with you, and we all edit within the boundaries of consensus. I would ask any reviewing admin to pause until he has had the opportunity to reflect and modify his unblock request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on this page, or the categories project talk page, or at the ANI page that suggest there is any comprehension of why a much more comprehensive response would be required for this editor to have a unblock process even considered. JarrahTree 13:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dennis; unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Wwikix, this is not a promising path. You acted against consensus, and no matter how much you argue that the others are wrong and you are the only one who understands what's right, if that is all you have to offer you are not going to be unblocked in a collaborative project. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wwikix, I read this page, the block, the discussion of it and the reason for it, and then I read the unblock request - and was really surprised to see how little notice you appear to have taken of anything that's been said. I would have rejected it had Dennis not made a plea to give you time to change it. So please take this opportunity, and listen to what you are being told. Your attitude that you are right and that what you want should have priority over everyone else, over policy, over guidelines and over consensus comes across as arrogant, and it is unacceptable here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As things stand this is an unblock request which I, having read through the entire thread, would decline. In view of the plea from Dennis Brown I will wait, perhaps to the end of the week, but no longer.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wwikix's reaction[edit]

Unfair accusation of editing against consensus and above all unfair blocking for indefinite time. Wwikix (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You possibly don't want to hear this as I'm not really offering anything that has not already been said, but editing contrary to a specific Manual Of Style instruction and contrary to multiple other editors who dispute what you are doing is pretty much the definition of editing against consensus. And all indefinite means is for an unspecified time, and you can be unblocked when you can convince a reviewing admin that you understand what you were doing wrong, that you will stop making changes that are against consensus when told, and that when your edits are contested you will stop making them and will engage in consensus-seeking discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Objection[edit]

I object to any unblocking of this sock puppeteer. We have tried too many times to accommodate him, across different Wikipedias where he is indefinitely blocked and should stop trying. Enough is enough. The bad texts that this user kept inserting everywhere have not even been fixed so many years later. Enduring damage should lead to infinite blocking. gidonb (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A small example of recent damage is at DENK (political party)#Requested move 2 March 2024 and at associated categories, where Wwikix made one-sided changes based on his usual hogwash reasoning. We are wasting a lot valuable community resources to undo the sock-puppeteer's malinformed changes. gidonb (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female people by continent has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Female people by continent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Asian people has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:North Asian people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regions of Asia by country has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Regions of Asia by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JarrahTree 12:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies by city in the Netherlands has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Companies by city in the Netherlands, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Castles in Germany by region has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Castles in Germany by region, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mosques in the Netherlands by province has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Mosques in the Netherlands by province, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion in Morocco by city has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Religion in Morocco by city, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian terrorism by country has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Christian terrorism by country, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No sock puppet of users Nono64 and 27.74.252.82[edit]

I am not a sock puppet of neither User:Nono64 nor User:27.74.252.82. Wwikix (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wwikix is a confirmed sock puppeteer of the IP. His message proves once again that he cannot be trusted anywhere near Wikipedia. Lying and deception are his first nature, not second. gidonb (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illegal immigration to Oceania has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Illegal immigration to Oceania, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Religion in the Americas by country[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Religion in the Americas by country requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Libin[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Libin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Zederik[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Zederik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prophets of the New Testament has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Prophets of the New Testament has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Provincial-Council of the Netherlands by province has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Members of the Provincial-Council of the Netherlands by province has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Provincial-Executive of the Netherlands by province has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Members of the Provincial-Executive of the Netherlands by province has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Haaren, North Brabant[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Haaren, North Brabant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourism in Sint Eustatius has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Tourism in Sint Eustatius has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourism in Saba has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Tourism in Saba has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lutheran bishops by nationality has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Lutheran bishops by nationality has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Grave[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Grave indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mill en Sint Hubert[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Mill en Sint Hubert indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sint Anthonis[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sint Anthonis indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of windmills in Liège (province)[edit]

The article List of windmills in Liège (province) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:LISTN

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. snood1205 18:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Islam in Bhutan[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Islam in Bhutan indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women political office-holders has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Women political office-holders has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18 § Category:Association football people by prefecture in Japan[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18 § Category:Association football people by prefecture in Japan. Qwerfjkl talk 16:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lords of Wavrans has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Lords of Wavrans has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § X by Y in Z[edit]

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/2023 October 1 § X by Y in Z on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk 11:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Printing by continent has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Printing by continent has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universities and colleges in the Americas has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Universities and colleges in the Americas has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multi-purpose stadiums in the Americas has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Multi-purpose stadiums in the Americas has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports venues in the Americas has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Sports venues in the Americas has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mining communities in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Mining communities in the Americas has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shanty towns in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Shanty towns in the Americas has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parks in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Parks in the Americas has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palaces in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Palaces in the Americas has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bridges in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Bridges in the Americas has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pyramids in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Pyramids in the Americas has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squares in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Squares in the Americas has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regions of the Americas by country has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Regions of the Americas by country has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pyramids in the Americas[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Pyramids in the Americas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourist attractions in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Tourist attractions in the Americas 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) 04:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tunnels in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Tunnels in the Americas 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) 04:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skyscrapers in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Skyscrapers in the Americas 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) 04:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bridges in the Americas[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Bridges in the Americas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Palaces in the Americas[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Palaces in the Americas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Squares in the Americas[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Squares in the Americas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Parks in the Americas[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Parks in the Americas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slums in the Americas has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Slums in the Americas 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) 05:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mining communities in the Americas[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Mining communities in the Americas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Shanty towns in the Americas[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Shanty towns in the Americas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourism in the Americas has been nominated for merging to Category:Tourism by continent[edit]

Category:Tourism in the Americas has been nominated for merging to Category:Tourism by continent. 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) 02:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rhisnes (disambiguation)[edit]

The article Rhisnes (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic.

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. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]