You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen right away. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes).
If you need help just click here and type {{helpme}} and your question and someone will reply to you shortly.
Hello! Thank you for creating Category:Israeli people by location. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you weren't ready for, but in general (no pun intended!) there should be three entries ready to go before a category is created, and they should be put in right away. If you're not ready to do that, then hold off creating the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was my intention to put sufficient articles in the category:German generals. As a rule I do this right away, but I was busy categorizing defendants at the Nuremberg Trials. Wwikix (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I was reviewing some of your new pages today. I noticed the location ones usually included something like "It has about 11,000 inhabitants (2015)". Inhabitants is a complex word, so I'm changing it to people. It would be good to use people on any new locations pages you create. Not a big thing but it will make the articles a bit simpler. Overall your articles look good. Many thanks for all the additions! --Tbennert (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) "Inhabitant" is OK if you link it, but, yes, "people" is simpler. If you do change from inhabitants to people, be sure to change the rest of the sentence, too. It's not the best grammar to say that a place has 11,000 people. It's better to say that 11,000 people lived there. Note the use of past tense: any population figure given is for a past census or estimate. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for creating Category:Geography of Oceania by country. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wwikix. You edited the Battle of Midway by adding the category:History of New Zealand. I'm missing something because I can't figure out how the two are related. They are about 5,000 miles apart; to my knowledge no New Zealand ships were in the order of battle nor were any New Zealand units mentioned as being among the defenders of Midway Island. New Zealanders did serve aboard ships of the Royal Navy during WWII, but I don't recall ever reading of any RN ships being in this battle. At least two NZ ships were island-hopping with the American fleet, but were not listed as being at this battle. There is nothing I see in the article that would make this about New Zealand. I didn't remove it because I presume you had something in mind when you added it. Could you help me understand what that was? Thanks Rus793 (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wwikix. I think you've been doing a good job categorizing things. I appreciate that you seem to include all the appropriate categories on both articles and categories -- many people only include one or two.
I do want to mention a couple of things. One is that you categorized entertainers under artists. Not all entertainers are artists, so we don't put the whole category there. The other thing is that I saw you categorize some people as scientists who don't appear to be scientists. These included Yair Auron, Yaakov Neeman, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Am I missing something about why you thought these were scientists? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think all entertainers are artists. Many people can be considered to be artists, artist is a broad notion. See the Wikipedia article artist.
Auron is a historian and scholar, Neeman was a professor of law, Netanyahu is a political scientist who wrote several books about terrorism.
People who are academics, scholars and researchers are scientists.
I suppose you could make those arguments, but we don't categorize that way. Academics are educators. Scholars are people who study. Neither of those always makes someone a scientist. Researchers are people who look for information: that can be done in a scientific context, but can also be done outside of it. Artists are people who create art. Many entertainers could be said to do that, but not all. For example, I don't think television presenters or personalities create art. English Wikipedia didn't categorize entertainers as artists until your recent change (which I have undone); while we do not have to follow their practice, in this case I think it's right. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for entertainers being artists, I totally get your reasoning. I too have thought entertainers would be a subcategory. But - on en.wikipedia categories get discussed thoroughly, and a consensus is reached eventually. In this case it means entertainers are a separate category than artists. --Tbennert (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 - You use a very strict definition of what a scientist should be. Very often academics are doing some sort of science, so for practical reasons I should say put the category academic also in the category science.
@Tbennert - It isn't redundant placing a person in the category:academic and also into the category e.g. political scienist. It's like categorizing someone in the category chemist and also into the category physicist.
I apparently didn't explain it well and didn't look closesly. First, I thought academics were under scientists, so that's my bad. You are correct that if they fall into more than one scientist category that they should go into both. By redundant I meant if they are in chemist they don't also go into the broader category of scientist. So yes, most political scientists would go into both the academic and political scientists category. Sorry for my poor explanation --Tbennert (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The operative word is "often". If they aren't always scientists, then they don't belong in the category. Categorizing them that way would be like categorizing British Prime Ministers under Category:Men: they're very often men, but not all have been. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please consider going to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Patroller and requesting Patroller rights? This will mean any of the new articles you create will not need to be reviewed by another editor. This lets people who review new pages move on to other pages needing more attention. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure to use change summaries when you make changes. You had a long stretch where you were changing templates without explaining your changes. The summaries are helpful for others to see what's being changed. Only (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defaultsort on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Hi, Wwikix. I was wondering why you removed the defaultsort from this article. Any article whose title starts with the word the should have a defaultsort so that the article sorts by the second word. The same is true for the words a and an when they are used as English articles. This is explained at Wikipedia:Categories#Special sorting. I put the defaultsort back on this article. Please don't remove any more from articles that need them. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you also removed the defaultsort from List of religions. Articles whose titles start with "List of" should have defaultsorts so that they don't sort by "List of" in most categories. Please leave the defaultsorts on these articles. I know the same results can be gotten by putting sort keys on individual categories, but if someone then uses HotCat to add a category, they won't see that the expected defaultsort isn't there. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful if you review this wiki's documentation on categories and sorting. Feel free to ask any questions you have. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In English, it is almost universal for people to use the form "Mount X" and that should be the default format. There are some exceptions, for example Ben Nevis, but in this case 'Ben' is Gaelic for 'mountain'.. A second point is that we do not need to follow English wiki where the particular needs of our readers suggests a better way of writing for them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this category to be by ocean instead of region, you need to reorganize the contents so that there's only one entry per ocean. Right now there are three subcats for the Pacific Ocean. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what particular reason would there be two blank lines instead of one in certain articles? In other words, two blank lines preceding a stub template. Angela Maureen (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the paraphilia category you added to Category:LGBT. I don't believe LGBT fits under paraphilia. Our article Paraphilia even addresses that. If you think it belongs in the paraphilia category and you want to put it back, please discuss it first. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And many don't. Putting it in that category is judgmental and pov-ish, both of which are to be avoided in Wikipedia articles. But, like I said, feel free to have a general discussion if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wwikix. I just noticed that you had categorized some categories for settlements and cities in Africa under geography. Those things certainly are political geography, but on this Wikipedia we don't put them under geography. I wasn't around when that was decided, but my view on why we do that is that people commonly think of geography as physical geography: things like mountains, rivers, etc. If we put settlements there, people might have trouble finding those categories.
So when categorizing settlements, they can go directly under the category for the place where they are. If there is a settlement category that contains cities, towns, etc., that goes directly under the place. If there is no settlement category (usually because there aren't enough entries to create one), then the categories for cities, etc. can go directly under the place.
If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. For the most part, I think you've been doing some good category work, so thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has requested deletion of Category:Female politicians, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When labeling articles for quick deletion, please do not blank the articles. That makes it harder for admins to know what content was there previously that is worthy of deletion. The only time we do blank when tagging is if there's an attack against someone in the article. Please also remember to warn users when you revert vandalism. Only (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wwikix. As you may have seen, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Problem with User:Wwikix and categorization about the category work you do. Because of that, I have removed your patroller right so that categories you create will need to be patrolled. This is not to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with the categories, just that I'd like your work to be patrolled for the time being. Thanks for your understanding. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing people by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality
Please note that to categorize people by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality, a reference is required. This applies whether the information is mentioned in article text, an infobox, or in categories. I just removed this information from some articles you created (Tom Lanoye and Tom Lanoye). Please include this information only if there is a reference for it. You can see en:Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality for more information. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Begin was a member of an organization that some saw as terrorist, we don't categorize him as a terrorist. Please stop categorizing him that way. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If an organization is labelled as terrorist, then the (active) members are terrorists. Begin was commander of Irgun and Irgun was labelled as a terrorist organization. Wwikix (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being a terrorist comes under being a criminal. We don't categorize people as criminals unless they have been convicted of a crime and we have a reference for it. Anyone can label an organization as terrorist (or criminal), but that's often POV. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true; if that's the case, no organization is terrorist and nobody is a terrorist. People can be terrorists even without a conviction. Wwikix (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They can be, but we don't categorize them that way without some kind of specific reference. There's a higher burden of proof required for what we can say on Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That proof has been given: Irgun was labelled as a terrorist organization, Begin was a commander of Irgun, therefore Begin was a terrorist. Wwikix (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that doesn't follow in general, and certainly not for Wikipedia. The standard for Wikipedia is that, in order to say in a Wikipedia article that someone is a criminal (which includes being a terrorist), the person must have been convicted of a crime. That's required whether you say it in the text or indicate it with a category or anything else. Note that I'm not ncessarily saying he wasn't a terrorist, just that we can't say it here without a source saying that he was convicted. Remember that in Wikipedia articles we report what has been said elsewhere; we don't draw our own conclusions. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider how a militant organization's actions are defined (not labeled) as terrorist: A later Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir was active in the pre-State Lehi which split off from the Irgun organization in 1940. Lehi was a paramilitary group active in armed struggle, targeting not only members of security forces (army, police) but also diplomats: see w:Lehi (group)#Goals and methods. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wwikix. I noticed that you removed the defaultsort from List of settlements in Trinidad and Tobago. Please leave the defaultsort in "List of" articles even if none of the current categories is using it. That's so that it will be there if other categories are added, such as with HotCat, and the editor adding them either doesn't think to check the defaultsort or they expect the standard list article defaultsort to be there. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. Good catch. That was probably left from when we standardized the names of settlement articles and categories. I fixed this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again. You might not have known, but here we categorize settlements of a place (for example, of a country or continent) directly under the category for the place, not under its geography or subdivisions. Settlements are different from subdivisions, which are usually things that a place is divided into (hence the term "subdivision"). For example, Brazil is divided into states,meaninng that every part of its area is in one state or another. Not all the area of a place is usually covered by settlements; there are usually areas that are outside of all defined settlements. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the issues for these categories are the same, it was disruptive to create sixteen separate discussions. It would have made it much easier on your fellow editors if you had combined them somehow. Would you object to combining them? I could do the combining, if you're OK with that. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to characterize Likud as a conservative liberal party rather than a conservative party, I think you need to back that up with a reliable source. (The article conservative liberal really needs a source itself.) Note: I don't necessarily disagree. But I do think you need a source, since I don't think that Likud itself thinks of itself that way, or at least does not articulate what it thinks of itself that way. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also added it to Israel itself. I do thank you for the source, without which I do not think your edit was justified. That having been said: for this purpose, adding the source only to HaLikud was really insufficient—as a rule you should not have to hyperlink to find a source. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain the purpose of this edit and similarones you made? It appears that the change was only to put the categories in a different order. Am I missing something? If that was the purpose, then please note:
We discourage making edits that only sort categories because it isn't necessary and it causes unnecessary churn.
If you choose to re-order categories when making other changes, the usual order is alphabetical.
I noticed in doing some new page patrolling today that you have generally given all of these articles their transliterated Hebrew names. It seems to me that per en:WP:COMMONNAME (ours is just a soft redirect to that), the following should probably list under their English names, because that's how they are generally described in English media:
I'm trying to apply as much as possible the Hebrew names (in Latin alphabet of course) because that is how they are called. Wwikix (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In English language reliable sources, these 3 parties are not usually called by their Hebrew names. They are called by their English names. HaBayit HaYehudi goes 50-50. The rule in cases like this is to go by the name commonly used in English-language sources. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would prefer the Hebrew names I understand that certain Hebrew party names can be a problem because they are not often used and very long, and therefore not very clear to the reader.
For that reason I would like to propose the following:
Thank you for being accommodating. I'd also change HaAvoda, myself. It's really almost never referred to that way by mainstream English-language sources, and only occasionally that way by Jewish English-language sources. How strongly do you feel about this? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would make an exception for HaAvoda and maintain this name.
Fair enough. I'm not prepared to fully argue with you about this. See my one edit to the template, because I think we need to do it this way. Otherwise, I think we can live with what you have here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've been going through your recent Israel politician articles. I'm not finished yet (and won't tonight), but I'm marking them as patrolled as I see them. However, the articles on Tzipi Livni and Zehava Gal-On (so far) really need to be simplified—especially the Livni article.
Also, the Livni article and the one about Avigdor Lieberman describe the parties they created as having been "erected". This would be an awkward construction even in a non-limited English, like regular English Wikipedia. (Does Hebrew use הוקם in a setting like this?) In Simple English Wikipedia you need to use a different verb ("started" is probably best, though "created" might work, too). StevenJ81 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Category:German Lutherans which you added to this article. To indicate a person's religion, even just in a category, there needs to be a reference for it in the text (required for living people) or indication of the relevance of the person's religion. Please keep this in mind when categorizing people. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has requested deletion of Template:Limburg, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it ever comes up again, please don't move something that's currently at RfD. It messes up the links in the RfD and makes for messier cleanup. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that you have been making lots of edits like [1] recently - it is generally unhelpful as if you now go to that category everything will be categorised under U (for university), rather than by their actual name. I am happy to revert this if you have got other stuff to do - but it does need to be reverted. MiloDenn, Talk, Contribs10:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Universities differ in names, sometimes they begin with the city name, sometimes with "university" and sometimes with another name. The easiest way is not to sort them. Wwikix (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with that - they should be sorted in their templates by places - that is how it has always been done. Otherwise we will have too many articles categorised under U. @Auntof6: Would you mind confirming that Auntof6, just because I know that you work on categories a lot. For now though Wwikix, I am going to revert them as they are not helpful. Thanks, MiloDenn, Talk, Contribs10:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MiloDenn. In a category for universities, we know everything is a university, so it's not helpful to sort by "university". Instead, for the university category, we use a sort key that is the distinguishing part of the name. In other categories, such as the category for the university's location or the year it was established, we usually want to sort by the article title, so we don't specify a sort key. Another example of this is lakes, because some lakes are named with the word "lake" first and some have it last. See Category:Lakes of the United States for examples of this. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wwikix. I noticed that you moved Ardennes to Ardennes (disambiguation) about a month ago, leaving a redirect. You might not have known, but when both pages exist like this and the page with the unqualified name is not an article, the article with the qualified name (in this case, Ardennes (disambiguation)) should be the redirect, not the other way around. That is so that the qualified name can be used for deliberate links to the dab (to make it obvious that the link is intentional), and so that we know that links to the unqualified name need to be disambiguated. It also helps with disambiguating, because the page with the unqualified name, which is the one articles might link to, contains the possible meanings. I have reversed the move you did, so that Ardennes (disambiguation) is now the redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wwikix. I noticed that you created Rosen, and tagged it as a disambiguation page (also known as "dab page"). That page is not a dab page, because all the links in it are to articles about people whose given name or surname is Rosen. Those kinds of links can be on dab pages, but only if there are also other links of the proper type. An example of this is Leon. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RfD nomination of Category:Lists of Nobel Prize scientists
An editor has requested deletion of Category:Lists of Nobel Prize scientists, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see en:WP:COPDEF: we don't want to categorize people under a potentially controversial or derogatory category like this unless it was a defining aspect of their life. I have added the enwiki category's explanation to our cat as a reminder. Please keep this in mind for other similar categories. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We put all categories alphabetically because it is simpler for non-english speakers. We do everything the simpliest way possible on this wiki because we are Simple English wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have removed your changes from Template:Did you know. Hooks need to first be brought to Wikipedia:Did you know for community review. Once approved they go into one of the Queues. Then there are some technical things which need to happen to make the facts appear on the main page, archive the information, and some other things. I'm glad you want to contribute to the page! --Tbennert (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two separate things and should possibly be in separate sentences.
To put just that one-sentence paragraph in the intro with nothing to support it in the rest of the article isn't good. It reads like an afterthought. Can you flesh it out and add at least one reference? As far as slave owning, there are a lot of possibilities. You could add something about his relationship with Sally Hemings, possibly including how his descendants through her and his descendants through his wife met in recent times and that DNA tests showed that they are related. You could include that he supported both pro-slavery and anti-slavery laws.
An editor has requested deletion of Category:People accused of sexual abuse, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned at least twice before (see above), you need to be careful when mentioning a person's religion or categorizing a person by religion. Here is the guideline on this:
Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see en:WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.
An example of where you did not follow this is John Ashcroft. I know you just combined two categories that were already there, but any time you touch religion categories in a biography you need to evaluate them per the above. Another example is John Ensign.
Before categorizing people by religion, please make sure you have checked all the above. Before you categorize any more, please go back and check the ones you have already done to make sure these guidelines are followed. I realize that might be a big job, but it's a requirement --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That might be enough, although it's preferable to have an explicit reference. I saw that you put back the religion mentions in the two articles I mentioned above, but I don't see that the references mention either person's religion. For Ashcroft, it mentions that his father was a minister, but says nothing about his own religion -- children don't always follow their parents' religion. For Ensign, I don't see any mention of his religion, nor any mention of Pentecostalism or the Foursquare Church. If I've missed something, please tell me what.
Shalom, W. I hope you agree with my recent change to Shabbath, making it redirect to Shabbat rather than to Sabbath. I documented my reason on the Talk:Shabbath page. But if I misunderstood your intention, please write in the Edit summary if you undo or or on that Talk page if you rollback. By the way, I'm delighted that you've got a Sandbox draft going for Meretz MK Ilan Gilon, he's one of my local heroes. (I don't create new pages myself.) Happy Chanukah! -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A sandbox page should not appear in any categories. To correct this: After you test the categories you want to appear, deactivate the Sandbox page from each of those categories by placing a colon to the right of the left-hand pair of square brackets. You'll see I've just done this on User:Wwikix/Sandbox. When the page becomes a mainspace article, you'll remove those colons manually - the admin who answered this query on Simple talk (Jan. 15) says that's how it's done. Let me know if you have any questions about this. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The issue wasn't just those changes, the vast majority of your category changes have been bad and I am going to have to go back and fix probably thousands. Something you were blocked on en.wiki for. And also because you have a tendency to edit war something you were blocked on nl.wiki for. You have been blocked on multiple wikis now for all the same issues you have been showing here. I should have blocked you at the beginning of last year when I first saw you having the same issues but I wanted to give you some leeway, but its just gotten worse over time. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am very surprised hearing these accusations. I thought I was doing the right thing and was helping to improve Wikipedia, and was working according to the customs of this Wikipedia. Wwikix (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's nonsense to say that my category changes are bad in general, that I have a tendency to edit war, that I should have been blocked at the beginning of last year, and that things are becoming worse. Till now nobody told me those things! I am completely dazed by these accusations, this is not the way serious users who do a lot of good work should be treated!! Wwikix (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of categorization because the categorization was a mess or necessary categories were lacking, I updated and created many articles, and I worked as a rule in accordance with the set-up of this Wikipedia, and the remarks I received. Wwikix (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Part of me says to ignore you. But I guess I do need to say that many of us have told you repeatedly that we didn't think the categorization was a mess, or that necessary categories were lacking. Just because you believed that to be true doesn't mean the community did. And the community decides. The community asked you to listen to it, and you didn't. And that's how we got to where we are today. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StevenJ81: There's no need to "pile on" here. Comments like that are not helpful and just increase bad feelings. Besides that, the community did not make this decision: an admin did.
Wwikix, continuing to leave complaints on your talk page probably won't get you anywhere. If I were you, I would ask the blocking admin for specific examples of the edits he saw as problematic. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeat: saying that over and over won't get you anywhere. I tried to help by suggesting a way you could find out what the blocking admin thought you did wrong. If you'd rather keep protesting instead of doing something constructive to get unblocked, that's your prerogative. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just one example that is easily obvious is you made up your own criteria for what you would call a town or village in a country that doesn't use those classifications and created a whole directory structure based on your made up classification, none of which were true. And then decided that what that country called cities were not cities and thus classified them differently. As Steven mentioned above you were told many times that you were over classifying, that we don't create categories just to create them. If possible we try to have larger more generic categories. Just a few examples. And to qualify for a one strike block you just had to do something wrong once. You have been blocked indefinitely now two other wikis. I suggest if you want to get unblocked here that you solve your issues on those first. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall being informed many times that I was over classifying. I was under the impression that I was correctly categorizing but sometimes you encounter problems that can't be solved in the usual way. For example, the Netherlands don't know the difference between town and city, so to be in line with how this in the English-language world I made a categorial structure that would suit best this Wikipedia. Besides, it is the first time I hear that this Wikipedia is trying to have lager more generic categories, like you said. And don't compare with other Wikipedias, it is like comparing apples and oranges. I really thought I was doing well and I am very very surprised reading that this is not the case and therefore should be blocked indefinitely. Wwikix (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is sort of the point, if the Netherlands doesn't distinguish between town and city then we don't distinguish between town and city. We state facts at Wikipedia, we don't make things up just to make them suit things. Facts are facts. And we do compare with other wikis. There are differences of course, but we have policies here that apply to what other wikis do. If you are blocked on one wiki then you have one strike, you do anything wrong that relates to the issues you have had at other wikis then you get blocked by WP:ONESTRIKE. An example for you would be reverting people multiple times. Once you did that you could have been blocked immediately. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Till now nobody told me that I was wrong to categorize Dutch settlements like I did.
Since January last year I have been on this Wikipedia, did a lot of good things and then it isn't right to block me just for one thing that maybe was also the case on another Wikipedia. Like I already said don't compare, you don't really know what is going on there. Wwikix (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Dutch language doesn't know the difference between town and city, this difference will be made if translated into the English language. For example, Amsterdam (838,000 people) will be called a city, Assen (65,000 people) a town, and Losser (13,000 people) a village. Wwikix (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you say about Dutch towns is just your opinion. In England, the designation of a city is a formal act of government, not simply an indication of population. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Treating people in this way is beyond anything that can be called "fair". You shouldn't behave like this towards serious volunteers who made a great effort to make Wikipedia better! Last but not least it isn't an advertisement for (the Simple English) Wikipedia!! Go on like this and after some time nobody is doing anything anymore at all!!! Wwikix (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've not read all of the discussion here above, but it seems very much that Wwikix though he was helping the project and hasn't got correct feedback. Please grant him a second chance and accept that the block cannot be justified according to one of the most important basic principles: asume good faith. Give him a set of rules and specify to him what he can expect for concequences when he doesn't comply. (and be more patient with him) I am Dutch and I believe very much that he is a honest man. From zero to an indefinite block is indeed unfair[2] No-one can deny that. Ymnes (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is the policy here, the other chances were the two other wikis he was blocked on. We have the policy specifically because people come here from other wikis when they are blocked thinking we are a free pass to continue, then create issues here doing the same thing they were blocked on the other wiki for so they knew they should not be doing it and then we would waste a lot of time on 2nd 3rd 4th chances. Now they get blocked as soon as they have an issue and if they want to come back they need to be unblocked on their original wikis. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's nonsense to say that I am coming here (already a year ago!) to do the same things I have been blocked for on other Wikipedias. Of course, I do not agree with these blocks but I am not going to argue about this here. You can't force someone to return to these Wikipedias to be unblocked in order to be able to participate again on this Wikipedia.
@Djsasso: In case you're talking about Wikipedia:ONESTRIKE, it states that an administrator decides on a case-by-case basis. In this case there is room for you to give him that extra chance. I can imagine that Wwikix must be shocked by such an unexpected block. He was never explained what he should never do on this project. The rules of wiki's are sometimes very different. He could not possibly know that he was doing something wrong. He is an asset to your project too: he is doing a very great amount of work (very good maintenance work too and within so much work one always makes a mistake so once and a while), he even added hundreds of new articles to the project (316, nearly one article a day) and he cannot be considered as some person that comes by and makes the same mistakes here as on his former Wiki (that judgement can be made in the first week, but not after a year). I think very much that you need to consider him like one of your Simple Wikipedia colleagues in stead of an outsider coming in. In one or the other way, there is room to keep this motivated colleague on your project. Ymnes (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It is not reasonable to block for indefinite time a serious user who did a lot of good work. Therefore I ask again to be unblocked.
Decline reason:
There are 2 points I see here. 1st is this is a 1 Strike Reciprocal Block, and you are still blocked on 2 other wikis for disruptive edits. 2nd is your rationale implies that you have no understanding as to why you were blocked, and therefore you are likely to return to the disruptive editing you were doing before. And as explained on the en.wiki block, indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite. Usually cases are eligible for review every 6 months or 1 after the block. They are reversed when there is ample evidence that the editor understands what they have done wrong, and can articulate how they are going to avoid that behavior again. At this point I do not believe that is the case. -- Enfcer (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a disruptive editor, that is nonsense. I try to avoid edit wars etc. but one is not perfect. So it is not reasonable to block for indefinite time a serious, hard working user because this user was involved in one single, little 'edit war'. Wwikix (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it wasn't a single edit war, you also were blocked on two other wikis. That history doesn't just disappear when you come here. It is unfortunate, but as has been pointed out to you a few times now, head back to those wikis and fix whatever it was that got you blocked there and we can revisit the block here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am blocked here because of a so-called "one-strike rule", because of one single, little edit war I am blocked for indefinite time. And after I had been blocked you came with other accusations to justify your blocking of me. That is not reasonable. That is not the way how serious users who do a lot of good work should be treated!!!Wwikix (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Continued nonconstructive edits on this page such as coming back here just to bold and underline old comments to imply yelling at people will result in talk page access also being removed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on this Wikipedia since January 2017 and performed nearly 34,000 edits. I made a lot of articles, elaborated many articles, elaborated and created many categories and combatted vandalism.Wwikix (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone.
If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Because you have abused this talk page by making bad unblock requests or disruptive changes, you are no longer able to change or post to this talk page while you remain blocked. If you wish to appeal your block further, please send an email to the unblock mailing list at simple-admins-llists.wikimedia.org | You have been previously warned about bolding and other highlighting to imply emphasis or yelling. I have reviewed via a translation of your Arb Con on NL, and it is clear that you feel all of your blocks are unjustified and continue to cause project disruption on those wiki's. Therefore I am removing your Talk Page access, and placing a 6-month ban on requesting any other Block Appeals. You may request via email sooner a block appeal if you fix the issues at the other wiki's and become in good status again, but any request for unblock that come before the 6-months, and are not due from your fixing of the blocks at other wikis will result in a ban of your email rights also. If you start to abuse the email process in any way your email will also be blocked.Enfcer (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
An editor has requested deletion of Christianity and homosexuality, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Gotanda (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has requested deletion of Stephen Paddock, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. IWI (chat) 23:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RfD nomination of Category:Subdivision of the United Kingdom
An editor has requested deletion of Category:Subdivision of the United Kingdom, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfD nomination of Template:Dutch political leaders
An editor has requested deletion of Template:Dutch political leaders, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has requested deletion of Category:Aldermen of Belgium, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfD nomination of Category:Former members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. MathXplore (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfD nomination of Category:Israeli-Palestinian people
An editor has requested deletion of Category:Israeli-Palestinian people, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfD nomination of Category:Former rural districts of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfD nomination of Category:Former Members of Knesset
An editor has requested deletion of Category:Former Members of Knesset, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page22:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfD nomination of Category:Former leaders of political parties in the Netherlands
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. MathXplore (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for creating Category:Israeli people by location. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org | You have been previously warned about bolding and other highlighting to imply emphasis or yelling. I have reviewed via a translation of your Arb Con on NL, and it is clear that you feel all of your blocks are unjustified and continue to cause project disruption on those wiki's. Therefore I am removing your Talk Page access, and placing a 6-month ban on requesting any other Block Appeals. You may request via email sooner a block appeal if you fix the issues at the other wiki's and become in good status again, but any request for unblock that come before the 6-months, and are not due from your fixing of the blocks at other wikis will result in a ban of your email rights also. If you start to abuse the email process in any way your email will also be blocked. Enfcer (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)