User talk:Androoox

PLEASE ANYONE: http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=108 "over 60% of Wikidata items have no corresponding article in the English Wikipedia;" http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/project_stats.php

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Androoox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.

Economic territory

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Economic territory, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Economic_territory.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Prince Albert Economic Region

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Androoox, thanks for creating Prince Albert Economic Region!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. 1

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Androoox. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Ross HillTalk to me! 03:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Istibanja, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinica Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Just a quick, personal hello as we've only talked in other venues until now. Hopefully, these will help to keep your energy levels up while you continue your hard work in cleaning up neglected areas of Wikipedia. I'll pop by for a one to one chat, or you're welcome to stop by my page if you want kick me. I deserve it. Good to have you on board! Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is nice, would like to eat this now ;-). Thank you. I hope English Wikipedia gets a new boost. WikiData can help a lot for the settlement articles. Bots should import data. Androoox (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to collaborating with you in some areas. You're fresh ideas, enthusiasm and intelligence in going to be a boon for us! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC) You can use this tool to check how often you are using edit summaries. Ideally, it should show 100% use of edit summaries. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes." - I did that.Androoox (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the notice because a lot of your edits offered no edit summary at all, as shown by the checker I linked to.

For example. these 10 edits by you included one automated summary, 2 manual summaries, and 7 with no summary at all.

The easiest way to avoid this is to go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box beside "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it, that since it is not ticked by default, that it is not mandatory to fill. Androoox (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Androoox. I still have your talk page on my watchlist just in case you encounter any difficulties. You're correct, it isn't a mandatory field. Under the circumstances, given that you've already been exposed to what happens in reality (as opposed to WP:AGF in theory), it might be a good idea to turn this feature on for a while... just until you get used to leaving edit summaries where they're really needed. (Note that it was also suggested by Whatamidoing at the end of the discussion at the Village pump.)

True, you are leaving more edit summaries, but still omitting them on pages you haven't worked on before or are making fundamental changes to. Remember, regular contributors and editors don't really know who you are as yet. Until they get to know you, the unfortunate by-product of not leaving an edit comment is that they're on their guard and are more likely to revert your edit. It shouldn't happen, but it does. You'll probably find yourself being just as wary within a couple of months!

Another suggestion I'd like to make is creating a user page. It doesn't need to be detailed, but even the fact that your user name appears as a red link makes people nervous, underlining the notion that you're an unknown quantity. The best thing is to look at a few pages others have made. You will get a few ideas and see how most people do it. There are no hard and fast rules, but remember: this is how other editors will form their opinion of you, other than seeing the edits you make. Have a look here too Wikipedia:User pages. I hope you don't feel that I'm a busy-body, but I see that you're going to be a valuable asset and would like your Wikipedia experience to be as smooth and stress free as possible. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iryna Harpy - I now did create a little user page.
User:WhatamIdoing, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Iryna Harpy - I turned it on yesterday, and it warned me already several times. I noticed it does not warn for minor edits. I would suggest it is turned on by default. So it is less received as a message targeted to a person (can have personal attack like feelings), but as a general message that is send automated and not enshrined in a users talk page. I think that can improve user experience a lot. And anyone can concentrate on working on other things. Avoid any manual work, if it can be done automated. Best regards to all of you. Androoox (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Androox, the idea of turning on the require-edit-summaries feature by default is a perennial proposal which sadly always gets rejected. I think that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages, but the consensus disagrees :(
Anyway, I'm glad you turned it on. I find that edit summaries rarely need to be verbose, except on contentious areas, and a brief summary is usually fine, while taking only a second or so to do.
Wikipedia is a collaborative environment in which all our work is constantly under scrutiny from others, and edit summaries are a very important part of making that scrutiny easy ... which is a critical factor in ensuring that any points of contention are discussed before they escalate into a big row.
Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately went there to sign, but found no discussion or signing page. BTW, it could also be of help to improve the automated display of changes. E.g. if one adds a short string, the software could use that for an automated summary. So, if it is unwanted that users are forced to type, but the are benefits from at least some summary, then maybe this can be done via software. E.g. now, I will type "reply", but software could detect that I replied and even to whom. Androoox (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. But it's very hard to get changes agreed to, especially if those changes might affect established editors.

A couple of years ago, I was involved in a discussion to change one part of watchlist formatting (specifically, to make it match the software's default by bolding pages that had been changed since the last time you looked at them, and leaving other page titles in plain text, if you'd already looked at what the last editor had done; previously, this hadn't been possible due to the size of the English Wikipedia). We had a huge discussion, advertised at all the right places, and 100% agreement from two dozen editors... and the day the change was finally made (it couldn't be done by editors, but had to be sent to software developers), we had a hundred people screaming at us and telling us that nobody had ever talked about anything and that the devs were evil and stupid for doing what everyone else had agreed to. (And, no, when we gave them proof that it had been advertised and discussed, they did not apologize for these false accusations.)

So we could start that discussion again, but I really think it would be a waste of your time. I believe there is an optional script that does some of your automated idea. User:SmokeyJoe, how are you getting your talk page summaries to be the start of your comment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I manually copy and paste. Usually, I have composed a response offline (I hate edit conflicts), and paste the same thing into both the edit window and the edit summary box. If I am replying specifically to a specific person, I try to remember to say to in the edit summary, although it is also good to put their name at the start of the comment. This is what I do for talk page post summaries. For articles and project pages, a more customised summary is better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, community discussions on certain points have a tendency to turn into time consuming POV conflicts. Bearing in mind that features you'd imagine would be default are not the default, it's worth worth investigating the the Wikipedia tools page as various features you might find useful just need to be turned on: HOTCAT, Prove It, plus all sorts of goodies to make sure you don't have to spend time typing in parameters for citations, as well as various useful little js scripts. Dependent on what and how you want to contribute, having too many features turned on as default would be information overload which could put some new users off (although I, personally, would prefer to see the edit summary prompt on as default). Becoming familiar with Wikipedia is a bit of a learning curve... but well worth the while! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laki Municipality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zdravets (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian municipalities

Please could you read the guidelines on verifiability and neutral point of view and take account of these in any new articles you create. Deb (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Androoox (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Borovan Municipality

Hi, I'm Nechlison. Androoox, thanks for creating Borovan Municipality!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Kindly try to provide more content in your page and resolve issues that has been tagged. Thanks

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Nechlison (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert anything yourself

I've noticed that you are reverting some other's edits yourself. Kindly avoid reverting and let other editors do their work. Thanks Nechlison (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

??? What do you want from me. Please go away. Androoox (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that translates as "You reverted me when I violated WP:REDLINK, and left a badly formatted mess in the article to boot, and I didn't appreciate your very correct reversion of my mistake". In his defense, there are hundreds of pages of "rules", and he probably just didn't know about this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot :-) Androoox (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

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

Anton Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anton

Chavdar Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chavdar

Devin Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Devin

Deçan Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bistrica

Kotel Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kotel

Madan Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Madan

Nevestino Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nevestino

Radomir Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Radomir

Roman Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roman

Slivnitsa Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Izvor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 15 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Orahovac Municipality page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Žitište Municipality

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.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian municipalities

Please do not create additional articles about municipalities of Serbia. The existing town articles map to municipalities 1:1, most of them are too short and underdeveloped, and creating content forks just gives more burden on maintenance and categorization, without an added value for the reader, to the shrinking pool of Serbian editors on En.wiki. This is a patently bad idea. Thus, I'm reverting your changes to villages of Beočin and Žitište. They were just fine in terms of organization, as witnessed by the previous 10 years of so of their existence. Thanks for your understanding. No such user (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be gentle with you, despite your being a newcomer: please do not move, reorganize, split, or otherwise change the organization of existing articles, without a prior consultation how it is customarily done. I know you are meaning well, but you are creating too much damage. I spent an hour reverting the damage you've done to Vojvodina and Kosovo articles. There are many ways to improve these articles, but you choose exactly the wrong one. If you really want to be of help, you could, for example, update the village and town population figures (List of populated places in Serbia) with results of {{Serbian census 2011}}. No such user (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are the UNMIK municipalities Serbian? Androoox (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a particular damn about them, but if you managed to make a mess out of Vojvodina ones, it is logical to presume you made it for Kosovo ones, too. In particular, you moved Leposavić to Leposavić Municipality out of the blue. I really can't spend too much time separating a rare grain from a lot of chaff you made. No such user (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#User merging article for municipality with article for municipal seat - Androoox (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Blueraspberry's advice regarding an RfC is probably the best recourse in this instance as you're dealing with an experienced contributor who has made some reasonable points as to potential complications and data overload, but perhaps also has also developed an exaggerated sense of WP:OWN. If trying to work it out between the both of you has been failing so far, perhaps fresh eyes are needed. Do read through the info about when and how to use an RfC and consider whether you could try some other advice on that page, or whether taking it straight to an RfC is your best option (as I can only give you my personal opinion on the matter). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that maintenance is more difficult is a hoax. Andrijevica Municipality and Andrijevica are two fine articles for items in Montenegro. For those with merged content, as in Serbia and Kosovo, it is sometimes not clear where an information is related to. Population data is sometimes not labeled whether it belongs to the town or the municipality. So it is the other way around, the current situation is a mess. Androoox (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy into any of the arguments countering your amendments and additions as being based on maintenance, et al, either. If any new categories prove to be redundant, they're easily deleted if articles aren't developed. Basically, it seems to boil down to a 'your stepping on my toes' disapproval. I have no doubt that you're capable of presenting a logical, well constructed argument for your case. Sleep on it, then consider the presentation on a fresh head. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Damn, I composed a longish explanation yesterday here (after I calmed down), but apparently haven't clicked "save page". I'll redo it at Talk:Municipalities_and_cities_of_Serbia, which seems the most logical and visible place. No such user (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I hope to return to the topic soon, but it may take until next week. Sorry! Thank you for the text at the other talk page. Androoox (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

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

Bačka Topola Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Karađorđevo, Mali Beograd and Obornjača

Cetinje Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zabrđe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Riyadh Province, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Markaz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Androoox. You have new messages at Talk:Districts of Hungary.
Message added 09:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moves reverted.

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold moves of Portalegre, Portugal and Piraí have been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion. Please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. Please note that the existence of multiple uses of an existing title is not sufficient reason to disambiguate. It must also be demonstrated that the existing use is not the primary topic of that title. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Szeged Subregion

Hello, Androoox. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Szeged Subregion, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Roborule (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missive at the top of your talk page

Hi, Androoox. I understand that you are agitated, but posting a huge notice targeted at another contributor will not help your case. Could I suggest that you remove it? It will only serve to diminish your esteem in the eyes of administrators and editors watching what is going down between yourself and the user you have targeted.

Better to keep a cool head and approach the correct venues for grievances with solid arguments as to what the problems have been. Remember, your life doesn't depend on making immediate changes. Cheers, my friend! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. But I am really questioning whether I will stay with editing. It is so stupid. I fix a year-long error in an article about a country that is a member state of the European Union. I create related articles to clarify the situation. I create new articles for items that exist in several other European language Wikipedias. And the new articles are proposed for deletion, merging. Are boldly merged - and when I revert, I get templated with "Don't revert" and my editing stalked. Anyway, I leave the computer now. Best regards Androoox (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's best to just step away and calm down. It would be a pity if you were to give up on contributing, as you've done some great work already. I think we all have those kinds of days (or weeks!).

There is some good advice about various situations here. It can also help to read some of the humorous essays on the subject of taking Wikipedia too seriously all of the time. You can find all sorts of suggested reading on the subject from the WP:FUCK page, as well as essays on what to do when Wikipedia is making you miserable. Take a break/take a laugh break.

The funniest part is that I've become such a senile old dolt that I actually find dicky articles funny. LOL! I'm too old to care about being cool! Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding terms

I have written at Talk:Subdistricts of Mandatory Palestine#Regarding terms. Welcome to discuss the isse there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

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

Subregions of Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Baja, Tab, Sarkad and Tata

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

''' ({{IPA-pt|bɾɐ̃ˈdoɐ}}) is a [[Portugal|Portuguese]] civil parish of [[ Amadora Municipality]]], in the outskirts of [[Lisbon]], with 2,39 km² of area and 15,647 inhabitants (2001).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

# [[Saruhan Sanjak]] (Liva-i Saruhan Hass-ı Mîr Liva, ([[Manisa]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chirpan Municipality may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*[[Darjava]]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by to say hello

Judging by the fact that you're continuing your good work on Wikipedia, I'm assuming that you've managed to get on top of your disenchantment. Tussles with other editors don't go away, but you do end up getting used to them and knowing how to behave and where to go for assistance when it is they who are misbehaving.

Hope your day's been a productive and (relatively) cheery one! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No attack

Who do you think you are, waltzing into an article and mass-deleting sourced information without the least attempt to get consensus? We don't work like that around here. Zero^talk 23:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zero0000 - What did I delete where? Androoox (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, with all the page name changes and redirecting, some old content appeared to be lost. I take it back. Zero^talk 23:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Best regards. Androoox (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I supported your proposed name change

Proposed Name Changes

Androoox, I supported your proposed name change. There is an ongoing discussion for a name change (Turkish invasion of Cyprus -> 1974 Cyprus war). I thought the proposed name change may seem to reasonable to you as well. If so, I expect your support here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus#Survey Best and Warm Regards, Alexy Flemming. Alexyflemming (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that I proposed this. Androoox (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the above change. Anyway, if you find the above proposed change unreasonable, you are again welcome to state your own opinion there. Thanks. Alexyflemming (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

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

Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Beylerbeylik

Almeida, Portugal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Siege of Almeida

Subdistricts of the Ottoman Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ottoman Turkish

Subdivisions of Saudi Arabia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Markaz

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin User:BrownHairedGirl 2014-02-12 Regions of Saudi Arabia and user block incident

Stop

Please stop depopulating Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia out-of-process. Longer post to follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the longer explanation. Wearing my admin hat.

On 9 February, you tagged Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia for speedy renaming to a new title Category:Regions of Saudi Arabia.

On 11 Feb I contested that speedy renaming as not meeting WP:C2D.

Today on 13 Feb you untagged with the edit sumnmary of "withdraw".

That means that you were withdrawing the proposal. However, instead of doing that you created the new Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia and began to populate it with articles which you removed from Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia, e.g. [1], [2].

That is a blatant end-run around the consensus-forming process. When a speedy change is rejected, that requires a full CFD discussion, not simply ignoring the objection.

I have no idea which is the correct title, and no interest or involvement in it. However, I deplore the abuse of process.

Please confirm promptly that you will revert those changes and seek consensus, or I will block you for disruptive editing and rollback your changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to prove that it was out of process. There is no need for process to create a new category. You also failed to show that you are entitled to block me if I don't respond "promptly". And you did not define what "promptly" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androoox (talk • contribs) 09:25, 14 February 2014‎

Androox, you yourself had proven that. You nominated it at CFD/S, where there was an objection, but you proceeded to implement the renaming yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the new category there was no need for the old to be depopulated and deleted. Because there were entities that fit there. That's what you seem not to understand. You didn't reply to the other two concerns raised, maybe you lack any backing here? Androoox (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Androox, you did not respond to the warning, and did not revert the changes, so I have blocked you. I will now rollback the changes you made to articles in Category:Regions of Saudi Arabia. Rollback is a blunt tool, so this will also revert changes which did not affect the categoristaion of those articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:BrownHairedGirl - See below that I did start to reply. Androoox (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You started to reply at 22:20, which is after receiving the notice that you were being blocked. I have now rolled back your edits to the articles which you depopulated from Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia.
  I don't know whether you are substantively right to want to change the name of the category; maybe you are, and I don't have any interest either way. As above, the reason for the block is having withdrawn a proposal from a community decision-making process, it is disruptive to proceed as if the proposal had stood and been approved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Androox, I will be happy to unblock you as soon as commit to stop implementing your withdrawn proposal. You will then be free to submit your proposed renaming of the category to a full WP:CFD discussion, where I am surethat it will be supported if you present the evidence to justify it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Findings on the block:

"You started to reply at 22:20, which is after receiving the notice that you were being blocked." - This is wrong. I started before, and you can see I collected diffs. This could not have been done that fast. While collecting I found the new message that I had been blocked. I tried to save, which didn't work. So I stopped investing further time and put the copy to my talk. There is so much nonsense in Wikipedia, you saw already on the CFD page that I submitted several proposals to improve consistency. Your automated reversion, which also reverted valid edits, is creating more problems than it solves. And two editors supported the rename of the main page, a third brought an extra ref for the new name. The page was there for 1 month already. It was stable and sourced. A reversion could have been discussed. A revert could have been implemented then. And not a general rollback. Androoox (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You even go so far as to call my edits "persistent disruptive editing". - It was a fix in categorization. No, objections had been raised for one month. And CFD was not needed anymore, since there are provinces. Androoox (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed "affecting dozens of articles" - there are 13 regions and one further article that I change the category of. "dozens" is blatant exaggeration. Androoox (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Androox, you sopped editing at 13:05 UTC. You resumed editing at 21:59 UTC. As soon as you loaded any page, you would have seen a notice that you have messages, and thereby seen the block warning, and the warning about rollback. Instead you kept editing.

You are quite entitled to you view that the recategorisation is an appropriate fix. You may be right about that; I dunno.

But what you are not entitled to do is to make a proposal at a consensus-forming process, then withdraw it and proceed as if the process had reached a consensus. My unblock offer above still stands, if you want to take it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did create stubs for the entities that are called provinces on the statoids site. This was directly related to the issue. Then I started editing Talk:Regions of Saudi Arabia to document the issue. Your block and especially the accompanying message is completely out of line. There was no persistent disruption. You did not use the block to prevent harm, but you used it for punishment because I did not do what you personally thought I should do. This is abuse of your rights as an admin. Androoox (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address "persistent disruptive editing", "affecting dozens of articles". You did not address that I did stop. Still you keep up the block. You still block me. User:BrownHairedGirl - you are keeping up your abusive use of admin rights. Androoox (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Androox, by the time you were blocked, you had recategorised 13 articles, but the the set which were recategorising amounted to dozens; sorry if the distinction was unclear.

My unblock offer above still stands, if you want to take it. I'll repeat it: I will be happy to unblock you as soon as commit to stop implementing your withdrawn proposal. You will then be free to submit your proposed renaming of the category to a full WP:CFD discussion, where I am surethat it will be supported if you present the evidence to justify it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. There are only 13 regions of Saudi Arabia. Never ever dozens. Androoox (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/you would have seen a notice that you have messages, and thereby seen the block warning/ - I only would have seen the block warning if I went to the talk page. FTR - I created 4~5 articles, then immediately started writing a reply to your warning. BOOM, the BLOCK came. Androoox (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of Saudi Arabia - Naming

I just started to address the topic at the page Talk:Regions of Saudi Arabia.

But thanks to your block, I could not save the edit.

Start documentation:

2011-12-03 User:Mushroom9 (moved Emirates of Saudi Arabia to Provinces of Saudi Arabia over redirect) [3]
- without any discussion nor explanation
2014-01-04 User:Zahiralbarqi moved page Provinces of Saudi Arabia to Regions of Saudi Arabia: http://www.statoids.com/usa.html [4]
2014-01-27 User:Androoox adjusts the page content, adds reference for "region" [5]
- also individual pages are renamed, e.g. [6]
2014-02-09 01:59 User:Androoox proposes to rename the category, one month after page move [7]
2014-02-09 23:04 User:Fayenatic london adds a further reference [8]

Androoox (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014-02-07 User:Ladsgroup files a bot request to rename to region, maybe he did not know of CFD [9] [10] -- Androoox (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by admin User:BrownHairedGirl

See this edit. Androoox (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTVAND. I used WP:ROLLBACK to quickly revert a recategorisation process which you had begun after you had claimed to have withdrawn a proposal to that effect, when it faced a procedural objection. You had been warned that this would happen, and chose not to respond. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That again is not true:

example
12:21, 12 February 2014‎ Androoox (talk | contribs)‎ . . (227 bytes) (-451)‎ . . (withdraw) (undo)

Androoox (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. That evidence shows that you had begun to implement the category renaming while the speedy renaming proposal was still on the table, but stalled due to an objection. Slightly different, but still ignoring the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. And there are items that belong into the category, that is why CFD was not needed anymore. I am really unhappy with your revert tool usage, but I cannot prove it is vandalism, so I withdraw that. Sorry. But the result is the same, as if it had been done by a vandal. Making the set of pages and individual pages inconsistent. Androoox (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your choice. You were clearly warned that if you did not revert your out-of-process category move, your edits would be rolled back. You chose not to do so, and chose to continue editing rather than replying.

If you had used edit summaries which identified the particular edits in which you had recategorised the pages, I could have reverted those edits. You had chosen not to do so, so rather than waste time trying to identify which of your edits had recategorised, instead I rolled back all your latest changes to those pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin User:BrownHairedGirl when will you go and fix your nonsense edits, like [11]? Androoox (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fix them yourself. You did not use edit summaries to identify which edit had recategorised, so I rolled back all your latest edits. If you had reverted your own recategorisation, I would not have needed to take action; if you had used an edit summary to identify your recategorisation edits, I could have reverted only that edit. It was your choice not to do so, and the consequences are of your own choosing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated certain changes to the Region pages, and taken them further, where there were other references to "province" or where the word "region" was already used within the article for a sub-area of the province. Please check in case I've missed any, as I wasn't looking for all these when I started.

By the way, this goes to show that it is worth making the effort to leave edit summaries. If you use WP:HOTCAT to add more detailed categories, it does it for you. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Hasteur

Androoox: You proposed a speedy rename of the category and it was objected to by an administrator and you withdrew the proposed speedy rename. At that point there was a consensus against the rename. You then decided to move forward as though you had established a speedy rename was appropriate (which is patently false). BrownHairedGirl (BHG) gave you a warning that the renaming was not supported by consensus and that if you continued, you could be blocked. You either missed the notifications that your talk page had changed or elected to not heed the warning and continued to change pages. BHG then implemented a block to prevent you from (temporarily disrupting) the encyclopedia any further. Once you started throwing out the term vandalism with respect to BHG's rollbacks you lost the debate on whom has the backing of consensus. That you cited the BotRequest change shows that you had read the advice I have there that there needed to be a Categories for Discussion debate as to if there was consensus. All of the problems you've faced in this "incident" stems from not following the "Discuss" portion of "Bold, Revert, Discuss". Attempting to bias other editors by putting pejorative section headers only reveals that you are not looking at this from a detached point of view. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems clear to me that these renamings will gain consensus and be agreed. However, there is a process to go through. There is currently hardly any backlog, so it will only take a week. Making a nomination takes a little work, but all the re-categorising of articles will be done by a bot. It's also handy to have a full debate on record, because it creates an audit trail – anyone can click "what links here" on the old category name and trace the rationale for the change. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hasteur - do you believe the un-sourced libelous [no legal thread per WP policy mentioned below] claims you wrote?

You wrote / BrownHairedGirl (BHG) gave you a warning that the renaming was not supported by consensus and that if you continued, you could be blocked./ - I did not continue.
You wrote / You either missed the notifications that your talk page had changed or elected to not heed the warning and continued to change pages./ No. I did not continue.
You wrote / BHG then implemented a block to prevent you from (temporarily disrupting) the encyclopedia any further./ No. That was impossible.
You wrote / That you cited the BotRequest change shows that you had read the advice I have there that there needed to be a Categories for Discussion / - No. It is not. My writing was AFTER being blocked. As a side note: it is not even clear if the advice was correct at all.
You wrote / All of the problems you've faced in this "incident" stems from not following the "Discuss" portion of "Bold, Revert, Discuss"./ - No. If there was any Bold action, then where is the proper Revert in that cycle, before I got blocked? If anyone wants to consider my actions as Bold then what was followed was USERBLOCK and mass revert with the inclusion of reverting a lot of valid edits, rendering the pages as if a vandal ran through. User:BrownHairedGirl violated WP:NOPUNISH

Androoox (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I found it was you who wrote [12] Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) are discussed. - FTR: I was not interested in Deletion, Merging nor Renaming, when I recategorized the regions of Saudi Arabia from Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia to Category:Regions of Saudi Arabia. So, even this "advice" fails to be of value in the user block issue. Androoox (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats

Resolved

Androoox, in the last few hours, you have twice accused other editors of "libel": [13], [14].

Per Wikipedia:No legal threats, please withdraw those allegations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any legal threat. And I have no intention to bring this to any court. Androoox (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification. However, per Wikipedia:LEGAL#Perceived_legal_threats, that sort of comment may still lead to you being blocked. I strongly suggest that you withdraw those comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Androoox, please read the relevant page pointed out by BrownHairedGirl. Written legal terms, whether you intended them as such or were acting out of indignation, are considered to be potentially genuine legal threats by the Wikipedia community. Please don't do yourself, or others, a disservice by using legal terminology in addressing them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What other term exists to name libel as what it is? Read what Hasteur wrote - he made a lot of claims without any source. And, why no-one asks the person that made the false claims to retract? Instead, the person that is target of libel, shall not state that it is libel. Anyway, I added a note to Hasteur's libel above, clarifying that I don't intend to sue in court. I really have other things to do. Thank you. And BHG has got the message already, so the WP policy cannot be applied to block me. Androoox (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see BHG's link to Wikipedia:LEGAL#Perceived_legal_threats. It offers some advice, alternative methods of engaging in disputes when they get heated, etc. I'll read through some of Hasteur's comments when I get a moment as I'm logging of for the day. In the meantime, take a breath and calm down. We don't want you to suffer from burnout! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No burn out. Just reduced fun by admins that violate policies and other users claiming things about me that are not true. But more important: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/project_stats.php >60% of the items have no link to English Wikipedia. Androoox (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your conduct. The thread is User:Androoox. Thank you. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Maglizh Municipality) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Maglizh Municipality, Androoox!

Wikipedia editor OccultZone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Added a external link. Next time when you make pages, don't forget to add references.

To reply, leave a comment on OccultZone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Pavel Banya Municipality

Hello Androoox,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pavel Banya Municipality for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. OccultZone (Talk) 07:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria municipality templates

I am not sure that these should be kept. Some might be worthwhile, but e.g. Template:Pavel Banya Municipality has no blue links other than the main town/village. Template:Dobrich Municipality only has one for a notable person, but I believe it would not be appropriate to put a location-related navbox template on a biography page, so there should not be a section for notable people in the navbox anyway. What do you think? – Fayenatic London 09:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fayenatic london - Agreed for the people. I think they should all be removed from the navboxes. But to have a navbox for each municipality seems OK. Some have more than 20 villages. And for consistency I would keep them. No time yet to work much on them. Now that the municipality pages itself seem to be complete, it would be time to rename all templates to "Template:<main page name>" and adjust the names inside. Androoox (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying, which User:JaGa seems not to have cared about. I will have a look at the policy. Androoox (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chirpan Municipality, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Svoboda and Zetyovo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Atama頭 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Urfa Sanjak

Hello Androoox,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Urfa Sanjak for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Op47 (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sulaymaniyah Sanjak

Hello Androoox,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sulaymaniyah Sanjak for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Op47 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Acre Subdistrict, Israel

Hello Androoox,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Acre Subdistrict, Israel for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Op47 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nogas (name)

The article Nogas (name) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

How is this notable?

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chavdar Municipality

A tag has been placed on Category:Chavdar Municipality 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!} 15:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]