User talk:91.124.117.29

March 2018
Hello, I'm Irn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Portal talk:Current events have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. -- irn (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! - the WOLF  child  15:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Sorry
I'm sorry I reverted you on Portal:Current events/2018 March 7. You were right. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Good luck. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Hello, I'm KAP03. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Defense have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 14:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

note
In order to avoid edit warring on Snooker season 2017/2018, please see Talk:Snooker season 2017/2018. Andygray110 (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My apologies.
Sorry for warning. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Good luck. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Hello, I'm Optakeover. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Category:21st century in Manhattan— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Poisoning of Sergei Skripal, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:EPON
Well, now, have you read WP:EPON???
 * Articles with an eponymous category may be categorized in the broader categories that would be present if there were no eponymous category... Editors should decide by consensus which solution makes most sense for a category tree. (emphasis mine).

What you are doing is not, of course, wrong, but there was nothing wrong with how things stood before your edits either, and since your way is not how the vast majority of the remaining Russia-related content is categorized anyway, it is important to gauge a new consensus (or at least try to work out your differences) before making any changes (especially in bulk). You are very welcome to do so, but you should do that instead of revert-warring. If any newly established consensus favors your approach, then re-categorization should be done systematically and properly, not haphazardly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 13, 2018 ; 19:56 (UTC)
 * Note, all geographic categories for other countries use the WP:EPON rule. What is the difference for Russia? 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is the existing setup. WP:EPON specifically makes a note of editor consensus (a part, I must add, you conveniently omitted when quoting the guideline on my talk page), and while there may not have been a formal discussion of the issue specifically for Russia, the setup is what it is, indicating implicit consensus (no one lodged any complaints in years before you showed up&mdash;you think there might be a reason why?). Furthermore, introducing changes in bulk by editing random categories without rhyme or reason, with no indication of a systematic approach, is the recipe for disaster. You should try following process instead of revert-warring; you'll find the results infinitely more rewarding.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 13, 2018 ; 20:07 (UTC)
 * Don't add category like "Populated place established in X" for that cities' categories. Because the only main article (name_of_town) related to such category (subcats are unrelated). You were reverted many times not by me, see 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

So, the first option is used for cities categories. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:EPON. There are three options:
 * Keep both the eponymous category and the main article in the parent category. This is used in Category:Western Europe to allow that region's country articles to be navigated together. This rule is used for all geographic categories (town and cities) now.
 * Keep just the child article. This is used in Category:British Islands, to prevent a loop. No any loops in discussed categories.
 * Keep just the eponymous category. This is used for Category:Farmworkers in Category:People by occupation. Such "X by Y" categories sometimes cover a limited navigational set, not a topic (see #Category tree organization), thus there is no logical article content. There are no "X by Y" categories in the involved category tree.

Snooker season 2017/2018
This page has been semi-protected for one day. In order to avoid the page being semi-protected again and denying editing rights to other users, please discuss and reach a consensus on the article talk page before changing the colour scheme again. Note: a consensus is not "I believe my opinion is correct." If a consensus cannot be reached, the page will end up being semi-protected again which will deny non-registered users like yourself the ability to edit. Andygray110 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Category:Adam and Eve— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Template:Planetary Missions Program Office
Your recent editing history at Template:Planetary Missions Program Office shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipTerryGraham (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification
Hello, a notice was recently posted here, advising you of Wikipedia's policy on the usage of multiple accounts. You have since deleted that notice with the edit summary; "its a not account" [sic]. Regardless if you are using a Registered account, or an unregistered account (IP user), the principle is the same. Using multiple accounts, or coordinating the use of multiple accounts "to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction" is not permitted. This notice was posted both here and at User talk:217.30.192.236], after reviewing at, where you made this edit, which was reverted by User:, which in turn was reverted again by 217.30.192.236, all within minutes. This gives the appearance of more than one editor disagreeing with Shellwood's edit. If this in indeed all a coincidence, then feel free to disregard this post, with my apologies. However, if you were involved in both the ip edits noted here, please keep Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry in mind going forward. Thank you - the WOLF  child  01:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, 91.124.117.29, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  00:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Template:Friendly tournaments 2016— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

So, I'm an idiot....
I confused 'includeonly' with 'onlyinclude', and I thought your changes to those template pages were going to break them. This is obviously not the case and I apologize - that was my fault for mixing that up. I see that you fixed what I removed - thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and I'll be happy to help. Best regards -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From Template:Navbox:
 * In your intermediate template, create a parameter also named "state" as a pass-through like this:

Ok now. Good luck. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Categorisation
Please stop adding non-existent categories to articles, as you have been doing with seemingly random ISRO satellite pages. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not random. Reason of revert? It's a needed categories. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) No, they are not needed. They sit just fine in the main ISRO satellite category. 2) The categories you are adding do not exist. Please revert yourself or otherwise fix your errors. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are needed. It's an absolutely correct categorization. It will be the subcategories of ISRO sat. category. Each satellite constellation has own category, compare to, , , etc. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then, again, two questions: 1) Why are you not actually making the categories you are adding to articles? They do not magically appear on their own. 2) Why are you only putting *some* of the GSAT and INSAT articles into these categories? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) because IP users could not create the categories, its a very pity. 2) because I wait for some time for creation of categories (by somebody) and soon I will check and add all the rest (five items in category is minimal criteria as I know). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the future, *ask* for the categories to be made, or better yet, register your own account. Adding non-existent categories to articles is not acceptable under any circumstances. They will be removed, and if you keep fighting to keep them included, you risk being blocked for disruptive editing. I'll help you out this time, but I'm telling you, as an administrator, to be more careful in the future. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Last time when I have asked for the needed categories to be made, it was approx. two monthes without any reply. So, the best choice for me is to add needed category to the articles as red-linked, then reaction is expected in the same day, as of now :-) Some bad users tried to remove the red-links, but some good users simply created it. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter if it take 2 weeks or 2 months or 2 years, you should not be adding non-existent categories to articles. That is disruptive. You may obviously request and wait, as wiki-policy has emerged that IP editors may not add categories; OR you may simply register an wiki user account, in which case you could simply create the Categories as User:Huntster has outlined. Those are your choices. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First, try to say it to 1831 editors which created 1831 wanted categories. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

question
makes a good point here, why don't you create an account? It appears you intend to be a regular contributor so it will help solve some of the problems you've been running into (and creating) as an IP user. I've also noticed that you go out of your way to remove any sharedIP templates placed on any of the IP user accounts you've used, so obviously you don't like people knowing your IP address, your internet provider or your location - you know a registered account would fix all of these issues, right?. - the WOLF  child  03:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Years in chess
Please leave the years in chess categories alone. This is the second time you have messed them up. There are a couple issues with your edits. The most serious problem is that you disconnected the century categories such as Category:20th century in chess from the main Category:years in chess category with this edit. Another issue is that you are putting articles such as 2001 in chess in the main Category:years in chess category when they are already organized by century in Category:21st century in chess which had been in the main category until you removed it.

You've done this twice. Stop immediately. If you make these bad edits a third time, I will ask for an administrator to step in. Quale (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Quale. Your logic and edits are wrong. All years should be in, all centuries should be in (but centuries are not subcategories of years!). Compare to:  and . They are related via parent category . Also  should be in  and in  simultaneously, compare to . 91.124.117.29 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you were wrong. Simply and obviously you broke the navigation from Category:Years in chess to 1900 in chess along with every other year in chess article that wasn't in the 21st century.  In fact you weren't satisfied with doing this once so you did it twice.  I don't understand how you could make that mistake twice, and it doesn't give me confidence in your edits.  Given a third bite at the apple you've finally fixed it now by dumping all the chess by year articles in Category:Years in chess.  I'm not crazy about this since it makes the category rather large, but it is OK.  If you would get this right the first time or even the second time instead of leaving it messed up you would be a better wikipedia citizen.  Quale (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have started with a small number of edits and planned to add all categories in a few days (more than 200 edits were needed), but you have reverted it before I could do it consistently. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC).
 * 1) That's total bullshit. You made dozens of other category edits after leaving Category:years in chess in an incomplete and broken state. If it's too much work to finish, then leave it alone rather than breaking it and walking away. 2) Leave the damn categories in a usable state while you do the work. All you had to do was to add the individual year pages and categories to Category:Years in chess first, before removing the century categories. This would have kept navigation from Category:Years in chess to all years pages and categories unbroken at all times. Instead you broke it three times and left it broken every time. Quale (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I was wrong about you having fixed this in your third try. You've still left a bunch of pages out of Category:Years in chess including 1900 in chess through 1903 in chess, 1914 in chess through 1918 in chess.  It was categorized consistently in a way you do not approve of, now you've changed the categorization three times but still left it incomplete according to the model you promote.  You should check your work to make sure you've made your changes completely and correctly before turning your attention to messing up someone elses categories.  Quale (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I missed a some years because they were not located in the centuries' categories. I will check it in a few minutes. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done for 190x and 191x years articles. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Snooker season 2017/2018
I'm not interested in taking sides in this article, but (as I said to the other IP) you need to have a look at WP:WAR. Violating that policy will get you blocked. Please read it, take a step back, and follow its advice with a cool head. 92.29.29.149 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Category speedy rename
Hi. Thank you for your proposal to nominate Category:Classification of Minerals for speedy renaming. It was motivated by the correct policy, but please don't forget to add the nomination to Categories for discussion/Speedy. The bottom line of the nomination tag is:
 * Add entry * Category:Classification of Minerals to Category:Classification of minerals – Reason ~

You need to click on "Add entry" and then copy and paste the rest of the line, substituting your reason for "Reason". I did it for you this time. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for help and explanation, I thought it will be done by special bot. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The actual renaming will be done by bot, but first a human has to evaluate your request. Glad I could help! RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have expected the bot action similar to Maybe, the bots don't work on category pages (why?). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It mostly depends on whether someone took the trouble to write the code. Just like with article writing, a lot of the bot work is done by volunteers; but new bot features need to go through a testing and approval process. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

About the payload separator
Hello IP91, about TLS-Separator for planned launches, it's better that we discuss here instead of reverting each other and talking via edit summaries.

Your version is centered and has a slightly darker color. My version is left-aligned and has a slightly lighter color. These are not very important questions, and we can ask other editors what they prefer.

My version appears in the table of contents, yours does not. Because of that, my version also shows an "Edit" button which does not allow to edit the text, but it edits the template instead. That is apparently why you prefer your version. However, in that case, the entre "Planned launches" does not appear in the menu TOC, and I think that's a useful feature for readers, who can jump directly to see the upcoming launches. In general, I am of the opinion that we should prioritize the experience of our readers, even if that's at the expense of the convenience of editors. Therefore I would request to return to a version that appears in the TOC. Would you agree to that? We can debate colors and centering separately. — JFG talk 17:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @JFG. In your version, a link "Edit" leads to the template editing, not to article editing, so it's a big misnomer. When the editor clicks "edit" he wants to edit a page, not template. Also, TOC with one-level subtitles ("March", "April", "Planned launches", "May",...) is logically wrong also ("Planned launches" are not month). The correct TOC structure was created by Chessrat before our discussion, see this version (completed: Jan, Feb, Mar; planned: Apr, all others). So I think your current version of separator is not so good (compare to excellent new graphs). It was an unanimous support for the green/blue line with centered text on the talkpage, not for subsection. Of course, we could discuss the differences with other editors again (create a new thread please). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's ok, we don't need to have another debate, I accept your version of the separator. I would just ask you to use the lighter shade of blue, because that is the standard color for planned and scheduled launches in every table. Thanks for the compliments about the graphs, they were really fun to compose. Take a look at my sandbox to see them all together. — JFG talk 18:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @JFG, thank you for undestanding. Feel free to change the background colour, it's not a principal moment for me here, if the other editors agree with you. Nice look of sandbox page. Maybe you will create the article something like Comparison of orbital launches by year and rocket using this graphs? Like Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of feed aggregators, etc. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have updated the color, and fixed the CSS syntax. Also made the font a bit larger, if you don't mind. — JFG talk 18:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We have an article for space launch market competition, but it's not very up to date. Perhaps you and I can work to improve it. I did the graph there, it was very complicated because we wanted to count only commercial launches, and we need to count satellites, with some rockets launching two or more… — JFG talk 18:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a pity, but that page is limited to commercial launches only. Maybe Timeline of spaceflight (with only graph as of now) is more appropriate article for statistical expansion. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a good place. Hard to pick enough colors for all rocket families over 60 years, but we could try! — JFG talk 18:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny problem :-) 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @JFG, we can take as source and visualisation here:   91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see link (8 April 2018)

 * Please see link User talk:Anthony Appleyard.
 * As (see also Special:Contributions/91.124.117.29) you do much editing work on Wikipedia, it would be useful (see Username policy) if you registered as a Wikipedia user and chose a username for yourself. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proposition, but its a not my way. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please again see link User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible use of multiple IPs
Please see WP:AN3. At first glance, it appears that you and 217.30.192.236 were cooperating to change the background color of a table to 'lightblue'. (The two of you appeared to take turns to make the same revert). See the list of reverts #1 through #7 provided in the report. Since both IPs are from the Ukraine, an observer might guess that you are operating both of the IPs. Do you have any comment to make before admins take action on this problem? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see above, and at Talk:2017 in spaceflight, I have interacted recently with this IP91 editor, and can vouch for their good faith. I have not seen IP217 in our line of work. — JFG talk 08:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * IP91, I told you life is easier on Wikipedia with a name. — JFG talk 08:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Warning for anachronistic mass changes (the Ukraine didn't exist in 1932, so making mass category changes from the Soviet Union to the Ukraine is purely disruptive...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Ukraine
Hello. Ukraine refers to the independent country created in 1990, so anything that was created/established within the territory of that country between 1918 and the creation of the independent country of Ukraine was created/established in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (or Ukrainian SSR), not in Ukraine (if you had changed categories to "created in the Ukrainian SSR" I wouldn't have objected...). Making your changes anachronistic, and purely disruptive. So stop. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the category you changed to being a subcategory of the Soviet Union I suggest you rename/move it, since the name is obviously wrong. And if I seem a bit irritated it is because of having to regularly revert anachronistic changes by umpteen IPs in the Ukraine, including edits such as claiming that Vladimir the Great was "King of Ukraine"... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As of now, the categories are named (1931, 1932, etc) which is the subcategories of the  (1931, 1932). They were created not by me. If you want to propose a [possibly reasonable] renaming to  (and all from 1922 till 1991), than my talk page (and nonsense warnings) is not an appropriate place, use WP:CfD (and don't forget other subcategories for Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova etc, etc). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There existing categories like the ones you added articles to (the one I checked was created by a registered user in 2015, so I know it wasn't created by you), categories that are blatantly wrong, is no excuse for making anachronistic, and seemingly POV, additions to those categories (the instructions even say do not add pages to non-neutral, i.e. POV, categories...), since anyone can create new categories without prior discussion/screening... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a your personal opinion (about "blatantly wrong"). Note, per article about name of Ukraine, the oldest mention of the word Ukraine dates back to the year 1187. As for me, Russia is a short term for the official names Russian Federation (now) or Russian SFSR (decades ago), that's why we have the unified and short and, but not long  or . The same logic is for Ukraine as a short term for Ukrainian SSR. Note I just added some articles to existing subcategories. And again, the category naming is not a question for me. Use the appropriate places to rename or change the category structure. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. Almost all subcategories have a short name, try to see: , , , , . They don't use the long-named "Armenian SSR" or "Belorussian SSR" in the categories names. So use WP:CfD if you want to change all their namings. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Anon is not to blame here, simply poor category maintenance and agreement on which method is best. For example, at there are three oddball categories that do use the CCP extension, but these seem to be the exception rather than the rule. See also  where it appears two other categorisation schemes are competing. The whole thing needs to be greatly simplified, streamlined, flattened out. But don't blame Anon. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alain Amougou has been accepted
 Alain Amougou, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Alain_Amougou help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Notice
Hello, I'm Thewolfchild. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Template:NBA have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Rubi (footballer), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi
In relation to this edit summary, I'd recommend you take a look at WP:V and WP:BURDEN. It would be beneficial to your editing. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Underwater sports
Hi 91.124.117.29, I refer to your edits re the above subject and thank you for what you have done so far. I however disagree with your point of view. Underwater diving is not a subset of diving. underwater sport is a subset of underwater diving because the former involves the use of underwater diving techniques. I have also noticed the 'category loop' issue and that it is more extensive than what you have pointed out. Category Underwater diving should be the highest category but it is currently shown as a sub-category of things such as 'Underwater occupations'. I will discuss the greater issue with other members of WikiProject Underwater diving and fixing it before reverting your edit. I also disagree with your POV re underwater rugby - please read the article which states "has little in common with rugby football except for the name." Also, one of the referenced sources states that the name 'Underwater Volleyball' was also considered in the 1960s as the name for the game. In this case, you are sorting articles by name rather than by subject matter. If you wish to reply to the above, please reply here because I am now watching your page. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for detailed explanation and logical argumentation. I have tried to fix the category loop problem only, and  were the subcategories of each others (after your edit ). Discuss please, what category should be the highest in the category tree. If you sure, feel free to revert my addition of  to  (but it seems logical for me). Good luck. 91.124.117.29 (talk)
 * Hi, please refer Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Underwater diving. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your efforts to sort out categories are appreciated, but when the correct category tree is uncertain, a request for clarification from the associated WikiProject is likely to save a lot of head-scratching. You are also welcome to ping me personally for suggestions about any category relating to underwater diving, or pretty much anything underwater, I will probably be able to help and save some time. I don't do much category work, because there is usually a long list of more urgent things to do, so I welcome anyone else with the enthusiasm to give it a go. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Pool part of the 2013 Finswimming World Championships, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice
Hello, I'm StartTerminal. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to 2013 International Champions Cup— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk or my talk page. Thank you. startTerminal {haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc} 07:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Categories
Articles are not allowed to be filed in categories that do not exist. If a category is a redlink, then it is not allowed to be there and you are not allowed to go around reverting me when I remove it — you must either find and use categories that exist, or leave the uncategorized tag alone until somebody else working with the uncategorized articles queue finds and uses categories that exist. I also see that you've been advised of this before by other users, so please note that you can actually be temporarily or permanently editblocked for being disruptive if you disregard this rule. Once again, a category must exist before you're allowed to use it — whether it's "needed" or not, it has to exist before you're allowed to add it to articles.

And no, the existence of the "wanted categories" report is not a legitimate reason for you to ignore this rule, either — the vast majority of redlinked categories on that report are typing or spelling errors (e.g. "Irish soliders" instead of ) which somebody has to fix to the correct category, or are illegitimate or improperly named categories which actually shouldn't exist at all (e.g. "Internet Service Provider 4GLTE the First in Iraqi Kurdistan"). Very few categories or that list are actually legitimate ones which get created by virtue of appearing there — the overwhelming majority of categories on that list are some form or other of error which gets corrected or removed, not categories that get created because they appear there. So adding articles to redlinked categories is not a legitimate or appropriate way to get a category created — this is not a thing where you get to make up your own alternative rules under the ignore all rules principle, because not following the rule is not improving the encyclopedia, it's just making more work for everybody else to clean up your mess. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming bureaucracy! My edits were made per WP:IAR. I just added the correct category for all related articles about this competition, 2017 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships. Don't remove the correct categories. Don't tuch this topic if you don't understand nothing in the sports categorization. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IAR only applies if "breaking" a rule is improving the encyclopedia. Filing articles in redlinked categories is not improving the encyclopedia, it is fucking it up and making more work for other people to clean up. We don't have rules because we're interested in being excessively bureaucratic, we have rules because we have to have rules in order for the project to work properly. I do not "understand nothing" in the sports categorization — I understand it very well, but there are rules for real reasons. People do a lot of bad things in category space, like assuming that every article always automatically gets its own eponymous category, or adding misspelled or misworded category declarations, or adding category declarations that aren't compliant with our naming conventions, and on and so forth — so the rule is not that redlinked categories are fair game, it is that the category has to already exist before it can be used. If you can't create the category yourself, then your only option is to wait until somebody else does — adding it anyway as a redlink and then walking away hoping that eventually somebody will create it for you is not on your list of available choices. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Hello, I'm CLCStudent. Your recent edit to the page Category:Roller coasters introduced in 2000 appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. 2000 is 21st century CLCStudent (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * LOL?! Really?! Try to read 21st century first. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You are right. A century changes at 01 not 00. Sorry. CLCStudent (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Andrei Kanchelskis
Articles are not allowed to be filed in categories that don't exist, as you've already been told multiple times. I'm not questioning the fact that Andrei Kanchelskis played for Saudi Arabia; the problem is that the category doesn't exist to have articles filed in it. Articles are only allowed to be filed in categories that exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming bureaucracy! Andrei Kanchelskis played in Saudi Arabia and the related category should be created. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not file articles in categories that "should be" created. We file articles ONLY in categories that EXIST. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * He played in Saudi Arabia and the category should be created!!! 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not file articles in categories that "should be" created — lots of people think lots of categories "should be" created that should not. If and when the category does exist, then he can be added to it, but articles are only allowed to be filed in categories that already exist, and not in redlinked categories. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * This was not a "content dispute" with two valid sides. This is a rule that you've been told to follow more than once, and not just by me, but still seem to think you're entitled to exempt yourself from anyway. For example, I have to add the "uncategorized" tag to every page that doesn't have at least one bluelinked category on it — a redlinked category does not make a page "categorized" for the purposes of being able to remove the uncategorized page template. And for another example, under WP:SMALLCAT rules, there would have to be five Russian expatriates in Saudi Arabia, not just Andrei Kanchelskis alone, before a category for Russian expatriates in Saudi Arabia was warranted. If and when the categories are created, then you can add them to the articles — but adding them to articles as redlinks is not on your list of options, and editwarring with an administrator over it is not on your list of options. An administrator acting to enforce a Wikipedia rule is not "involved" in the sense that you're invoking it — administrators can temporarily or permanently editblock people who are persistently breaking rules, even if they were personally "involved" in the cleanup. The edit block is temporary, and you will be able to edit again tomorrow. But the next time an administrator explains to you what the rules are and why, you need to listen. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This involved admin don't know the rules even. WP:SMALLCAT says, Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country. In this case, "Russian expatriates in the Saudi Arabia" is the part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (as subcategory of and ). More than half subcategories in it have 4 or less members. Also this his edit  with removing of correct sports category is a real vandalism. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is not "vandalism" to remove redlinked categories, because redlinked categories are not allowed to be used. If you want articles to be filed in a category, then you need to create the category — and if you can't create the category yourself, then you need to wait until somebody else gets around to creating it before you add it to articles. Filing the articles in a redlinked category, while leaving it red, is not on your list of options, and removing the uncategorized template from an article because you're adding it to a redlinked category is not on your list of options. An article is only properly categorized, and thus no longer in need of the uncategorized template, if it is already in at least one bluelinked category — if its only category is a red link, then it is still uncategorized, because it is still not accessible from inside the existing category tree. Categories have to exist before they can be used — the "wanted categories" report, as I explained to you already, is a cleanup tool that's used to catch and cleanup things like misspelled or misnamed categories, and categories that genuinely should not exist at all (like the "Kurdish-Internet Service Provider 4GLTE the First in Iraqi Kurdistan" example I pointed out to you above). Filling it with redlinks is not a way to get new categories created — there's a process for getting new categories created which you're welcome to follow, but going around prematurely adding the category to articles as a redlink is not that process. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a personal opinion of this admin to support his wrong action. WP:SMALLCAT disagree with him, see above. He blocked me to take an advantage in the dispute. I will try to start a desysop process for this admin for absolutely incorrect block and IP user abuse. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not "block you to take an advantage in a dispute" — I blocked you because you broke a rule that you have been told more than once, including by other editors besides me, to follow, and because you started revert-warring over it. Categories have to exist before they can be used. That's the rule, and I'm not the first person to have told you that. The rules are not just "content disputes" with two valid sides; they exist for reasons, and when an administrator explains to you what the rule is and why, you need to listen. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * SMALLCAT says nothing about allowing redlinked categories. These are not permitted, plain and simple. I'm sorry that you disagree, but Bearcat is preventing your disruptive actions here. Stop adding these non-existent categories, period. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack
I removed the notice box you created because it contained a personal attack. If you wish to place another retirement notice, go ahead, but calling the admin that blocked you an "idiot" is not a good way to go about getting unblocked. In fact, it is likely to cause your block to be extended along with your talk page access revoked. Take the time off to cool down and review the rules (and don't edit with other IP accounts), then come back and contribute productively. - the WOLF  child  21:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)