User talk:TrueColour

Postal codes in Israel
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Postal codes in Israel, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080902062807AAmmbb3. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Postal codes in Croatia
Well, I introduced the SVG because I thought the article could use an illustration, but it's rather unhelpful at the moment, as you noticed yourself. Superimposed telephone number prefixes would do the trick. It could be done with a software that is capable of editing SVGs. There's Inkscape, for example, but I haven't used it. GregorB (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Page moves
Do you have consensus for these? --John (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * what do you mean? TrueColour (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look my latest move Manzanares -> Manzanares River. After the move I looked what links to Manzanares.
 * Maybe 50 or so municipality pages did, because there is a municipality with that name: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Municipalities_in_Ciudad_Real&diff=320651499&oldid=218158253
 * a music form from Venezuela is called like that, and linked falsely to the river
 * and many more needs to be fixed. Links to dab pages can be automatically be detected as being "wrong" links
 * TrueColour (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have a question about some of these. For example, you moved Seia to Seia Municipality, while Seia is a municipality, is its name really Seia Municipality? If it is not, then the move needs to be fixed. Also, what is the argument that this move makes sense with regard to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Finally, why was a move needed when the first sentence stated "Seia is a city and a municipality ..." Thanks, 66.57.4.150 (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "really"? The municipality is in Portugal, so the name of course is not "Seia Municipality". Same with all the articles names in Districts of Portugal. The districts are not "really" named "District". You say If it is not, then the move needs to be fixed. - Please proceed.
 * You asked: why was a move needed when the first sentence stated "Seia is a city and a municipality ..." - The move was not "needed". One could also have split by creating a new article by hand at the move target and then copy paste. But since the article was primarily about the municipality I choose to move and then start an article about the city. I fixed the intro at Seia Municipality, see what it says now:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seia_Municipality&diff=320777737&oldid=320632362
 * Also see some related disambiguation between the city and the municipality:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loriga&diff=320778088&oldid=319707863
 * If you find more of these and if you like please help fixing. In Portugal city/town (cidade/vila) is almost always different from the concelho/municipio, see details in the article Municipalities of Portugal. With regard to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - what is your suggestion for the naming of the municipality articles? There is a big overlap in names of parishes, municipalities, towns/cities and sometimes other features. Adding to this overlap are topics from outside Portugal, esp. Brazil but also other Romance language place names ot even Germanic ones, e.g.: Mora Municipality. TrueColour (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

True Colour, please revert your municipality page moves and content removals, this was done without any discussion or consensus. The current format we have for all Portuguese municipalities is that in a single article we have material on the whole municipality, including its town itself. In some urban municipalities, it doesn't even make sense to split the notion of city and its municipality, such as Lisbon and Porto. As for all others, the material gathered in an article does not justify splitting - we have tens of such articles with less than a few sentences of contents. I agree that if an article on a specific municipality gets sufficiently expanded, such as Sintra, it will make sense splitting between Sintra (town) and Sintra (municipality). But not at the moment. Your district moves are also against the the manual of style, please move back. And in the future, please discuss such changes before making such mass unilateral moves. Thanks. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  17:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the place to reach a consensus on that? I see nothing at WP:PORTUGAL TrueColour (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On this matter, probably WP:MOS-PT, WP:RFC, the talk page of a major article on a Portuguese town, the talk page of Portugal itself, The Village Pump, the talk page of WP:MOS, etc. There are many places, the best is to create a discussion somewhere and then go to these pages and place a notice saying that a discussion is happening elsewhere on the matter. That suffices to attract interested parties. But running a mass move without discussing it is a terrible idea. It creates hundreds of moves to be reverted which is quite time consuming, especially if other people have edited after the move. Please put everything back and then improvements can be discussed. I further bring to your attention that titles such as "Braga Municipality" or "Braga District" are against the Manual of Style. The subject type for geographical entries goes in parenthesis - "Braga (municipality)" or "Braga (district)". Please let me know if you can revert all by yourself of if you need assistance. But the quicker it is done, the easier it will be. Thanks. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  18:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles). The MoS says at Naming conventions (geographic names) "if one district in a country is moved from X to X District, it is worth discussing whether all districts should be moved" i.e. it specifically says that X District is ok. TrueColour (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just a sentence explaining its point, there's no convention about format there. Hús  ö  nd  21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If they used it I guess this format is not against MoS. I didn't find that the MoS says that Somename District is not allowed. Together with MOS "Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article" I think Somename District and Somename Municipality is just the best and the most straight forward. TrueColour (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA - one comment deleted. Thank you for understanding. And maybe you look how the districts are called in Portuguese? TrueColour (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone else who wants to contribute is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles). TrueColour (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks were made; such unfounded charges are all too common. But this does suggest what the real problem is: when TrueColour has time to spare from reversion, he might read WP:NCGN and find that, this being the English Wikipedia, what matters to us is what these towns are called in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you attacking me again? Why shall I read WP:NCGN to find what the towns are called, when I asked for districts? And in Portugal Portuguese is spoken and when you translate it you end up with X District or word by word District of X - you never end up with "X (district)", because the class identifier "district" is part of the name. Maybe instead of harassing users you go and help with content. Thank you. I really don't know why you involve without any positive contribution. TrueColour (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't attack you a first time; I said you were wrong on our practices - as you are mistaken in English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But I use English. Where not? TrueColour (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not fluently, nor correctly, as with your question itself. Where didn't I? or Where is it not English? are the idioms. English cannot be written out of a dictionary, any more than Portuguese.
 * Your moves have the same problem. Resende Municipality, Portugal is one way to distinguish the municipal government from the old town; but it is not the natural and idiomatic way. (Probably the best would be to have one article for both, and differentiate.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How in your dialect of English would you name an article about a municipality as geographic entity located in a non-English-language native country where the class identifier is needed? TrueColour (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, we don't need two articles (and it's not helpful to have them); we need one article on Resende, Portugal, which distinguishes between the town and the municipality. If we had to have two, the natural name for both would Resende; since that's ambiguous, the simplest course is not to make something up, or to translate as English does not, but to add a parenthetical disambiguator to the less read one: Resende, Portugal (municipality). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

moved some talk to Talk:Municipalities of Portugal. Does not belong here. Better there, so others can involve to TrueColour (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

TrueColour, please stop doing edits such as this. These edits follow your mass moves and dabs which will all be reverted so please stop making it harder to clean. Please avoid making edits that will be in line with your non-consensual disruption of Portuguese municipality articles. Thank you. Hús ö  nd  18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * TrueColour, you have been reported to WP:ANI. Thank you. Hús  ö  nd  20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * TrueColour, your moves look reasonable at first glance, but please let discussion conclude before you move any more. Continuing might be classed as disruptive and blockable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend that you read Sarek of Vulcan's comment above; it is a long established principle that whoever edits Wikipedia must expect to have his edits mercilessly edited, including reversal. Your edits are not in accord with our guidelines; they are not English; and they are widely disputed, not by me alone.


 * This is the English, not the Portuguese, Wikipedia; please confine your attentions to languages in which you possess fluency. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, not even the Portuguese wikipedia has this organization (see http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisboa). I also think it's confusing, breaks a lot of links and serves no interesting purpose. Jgpaiva (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

Your editing and PM's comments
I saw your comments on PM's page before I saw them on my own. I addressed this with PM as well as the comment above, which I believe wasn't intended quite so bad as it may sound. PM is a very experienced editor. I think he saw your more recent moves and thought you were continuing to do what Sarek asked you not to. I haven't had a chance to actually go through your recent edits and form an opinion for myself. I suggest that you don't move any pages for awhile. You and PM don't need to agree but to work together within Wikipedia you do need to both agree on whether consensus has been reached or at least accept at some point that it may have. I think the consensus that has developed about your editing is in line with what I've said above and what Sarek proposed. Stop moving anything and let's talk. It is clear that you are NOT a vandal, but you need to work through these issues rather than continuing on your way or it won't matter that you aren't a vandal. I have no knowledge nor concern with how these towns and districts and what-have-you are named, I think the same is likely true with Sarek, that's good on the one hand - we don't have a bias, but bad on the other, I at least have no clue which name is right. The point that I think others tried to make before though was that the name should be what they are called when reported about, written about, etc. in English language sources. If there are no English language sources and the native language name isn't known in English then we have a standard. So for example in Germany, Bamberg is the city, Bamberg (district) = Landkreis Bamberg. Now "Landkreis" doesn't mean "(district)", it doesn't even really mean "District", it means what in America would be a county or parish but those words have historical meanings in English, especially American English, that they don't carry in German. Literally it means a "country circle" but that would be an absurd name. Some way must be devised to distinguish it from the city of Bamberg, so we have this odd convention of adding a parenthetical after anything that needs to be distinguished like that, not just districts. Notice that if it doesn't need to be distinguished it isn't, thus Haßberge = Landkreis Haßberge, there is no other geographic place called "Haßberge". As for the specifics of Portugal, well, you and PM and all need to work that out but it should be consistent with other parts of the encyclopedia.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * District issue and more addressed at talk of SarekOfVulcan TrueColour (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I said to PM: "I'm beginning to agree that TrueColour is out of line and disruptive" - followed by a clause about WP:BRD. If you get reverted and you don't discuss then you are being disruptive if you make the same edit again or anything close to it. If other editors tell you that you just made dozens of edits that did not conform to MOS, prior and probably current consensus, etc., take you to ANI and an uninvolved admin asks you to stop moving and discuss; then further moves are disruptive. Sarek asked you to stop moving and discuss on 20 October, you have continued to move many articles since then. That makes me "begin[ ] to agree that [you are] out of line and disruptive". That's what I meant. If you don't discuss moves after this and the previous thread, you are risking a block for your disruption. This would be most unfortunate as you are not only not a vandal, but you have substantial interest and knowledge regarding the topics in question and could probably contribute substantially. Moreover, I'm not entirely convinced that your way of naming isn't better, but it needs discussion not unilateral implementation. (BTW, it would help the flow of threads if you responded to me on either your page or mine, rather than commenting on Sarek's page about something I said on PM's page regarding you.)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Already before Sarek asked I halted moving of /related articles/, with one exception: Resende.
 * That Husond "reported me to ANI" does not prove anything about /my editing/. It does say something about /his way of handling conflicts/.
 * I did not get reverted on the municipalities. The naming was under discussion. With claims by Husond that they are against MOS and that splitting is not needed /now/.
 * Husond agreed the municipalities and cities can be split when they get "sufficiently" expanded. Pmanderson said it is "probably" better to have one article. Later PM said: "First we do not need two articles". So he was not clear about the topic himself. Then he mixed the geographic entity with the government of that entity....
 * Only 17:52, 19 October 2009 Husond asked me to revert the municipality moves. From that point on I moved /ONE/ municipality namely Resende 22:49, 19 October 2009.
 * I always discussed, replied to questions, tried to make clear why I moved articles. Pmanderson and Husond on the other hand didn't really discuss the naming matter, they mostly threw phrases like that it is against MOS, but they failed to provide any sentence from MOS that supports their claims. Pmanderson then turned to make the discussion a discussion on my English language skills. Not very helpful for the matter at hand.
 * 20:21, 20 October 2009 Pmanderson comes and says with respect to the naming scheme "the simplest course is not to make something up" and then, voila, comes up with a scheme that I have never seen before, and that /may be/ against MOS. He proposed to use "Resende, Portugal (municipality)".
 * 20 Oct 19:24 I did got reverted on /districts/. The articles were at that name for 11 days and nobody brought opposition. I brought them in line with common naming in English WP. The article format only was challenged ca 10 days later by ONE (I think so) user, and that was Husond. Knowing that the format is under discussion he started what I think is the beginning of edit warring and moved the articles (20 Oct 19:24). Please see Talk:Districts of Portugal.
 * I likely spotted the revert moves when I was returning to work on Aveiro District, an article I wanted to make a show case of some of the improvements I planned, and I wanted to use to show why we need to have good names for the municipalities and to NOT mix them with cities. After spotting, I reverted /four/ of the moves, then stopped. The revert moves of the districts that he made could have been done at any time after the discussion, since it is a very easy conversion between the two formats. Also bots can convert this stuff in case I edited something. I told him to stop moving the articles and that it is "against consensus" meaning there was no consensus for that and also that he knew that his view was contested. Unneeded article moving. This applies to me too. So I stopped myself in moving them back.
 * 19:42, 20 October 2009 immediately after that moving of districts he goes to ANI: "For the past several days, he [TrueColour] has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean. Several users including myself have already explained to TrueColour why what he did is wrong and needs to be reverted straight away."
 * At least at ANI he now says /likely against MOS/ stopping the claim that /it is against MOS/.
 * That he brought this to ANI was I think completely unnecessary. Moving of municipalities was halted. Topic was under discussion.
 * to say "hundreds of pages" is false. To say "takes ages to clean" may be false too, it depends on who does the "cleaning".
 * To say " Several users including myself have already explained to TrueColour why what he did is wrong and needs to be reverted straight away." is wrong too, they did not /explain/. They did say why /they/ think it is wrong.
 * 20:07, 20 October 2009 he notifies me of the ANI thread. I did not know about that before. So the halt of the /district/ moves false before that notification. Including the municipality moves that I stopped before already, it can be seen that even SarekOfVulcan suggestion to stop the moves was /not/ needed in my case. I replied to him that it had already stopped.
 * I was always discussing the topic and halted moves (except Resende) at the point when Husond asked me to revert. Maybe I did some more splits, but I think it is up to the accuser to provide statistics for that. I already spent very much time on proving that they say things that are not true.
 * About edits: Husond came to ask me to /not/ insert: " The district capital is [the] city of Aveiro. " into the Aveiro municipality article. I do not think this is a fair request. City was split from municipality, so it actually was necessary to link the related topics. Other people could complain the other way around, "please at least when you split, link the articles".
 * @flow of threads: I 99% agree with you. The remaining 1% is: I made responses, where accusations were made. I think I could better have set pointers to unify the stuff. Talk:Districts of Portugal is an attempt for the unification of one of the three issues and the related dispute.
 * I am confident the district issue can be settled soon. For the municipality splitting and naming I am not sure. TrueColour (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Samfya District
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Samfya District, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.visitzambia.co.zm/eng/news/news/visit_zambia_general/destination_luapula_samfya_district. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Aimag
see Talk:Aimag

Provinces of Mongolia
Actually, I moved "Aymguud" to "Aimags" as per WP:MON (in its 2006 form). In general, I have no objections to this article being moved back to "Provinces", especially considering the fact that neither "aymguud" nor "aimag" can be considered an English term. For what it's worth, what you say on Talk:Aimags of Mongolia makes good sense to me, but I don't see a consensus on that page, so I would be really uncomfortable just moving the page back on my own. Since I am a fan of due process, my recommendation to you would be to please submit a move request for this page; I will gladly support it (unless good reasons for not moving it arise during the process, which looks doubtful). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:27, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already a move request for that page. Chanheigeorge started it. I do not see a 2006 form of WP:MON. In its current form which it is in since Sept 2008 it supports "province" more than "aimag". Maybe, if you are fan of due process you must even revert your move, since even in March 16, 2007, - the day of your move, it supported "province" more than "aimag". TrueColour (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot move the article while an ongoing move request is pending resolution. As for WP:MON, you are right that my move was primarily because "y" needed to be replaced with "i".  At any rate, whatever the past reasons, since the issue is being re-examined right now, that's the process we need to stick to (in spirit of WP:CCC).  With that in mind, I have just cast my vote to support the move request.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:59, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Municipalities of Portugal
Hello. I noticed that you forgot to change the city/municipality article of some Portuguese localities (Viseu and Gouveia are two examples). I hope you finish the work you had started. Thanks. Jomig (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not forget that. TrueColour (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rivers in Portugal
see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Rivers

Lakes in China
Please don't move Lake XX to XX Lake. Please see Naming conventions (Chinese). Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only moved some, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) TrueColour (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop moving (as you just did to Lake Aibi) before the discussion is completed. Thanks! --Pengyanan (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, you began to move mountains in China! Please don't move Mount XX to XX Mountain! Please see Naming conventions (Chinese). If you want to change the rule, please discuss first. Thanks! --Pengyanan (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am friendly enough. I just cited the rules in Naming conventions (Chinese) and reverted you moving. Please don't move Lake XX to XX Lake and Mount XX to XX Mountain until you successfully change the rules. I personally do not have any preference on which one should be the naming convention. I simply follow the rules, whatever the rules are. Thanks for your understanding. --Pengyanan (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "I simply follow the rules, whatever the rules are." - Article moves were reverted without discussing. To other articles the scheme from NC (chinese) was not applied. Only to my moves. I moved without knowing the NC, I only saw inconsistency. I removed the inconsistency. Now it is inconsistent again. " Thanks for your understanding." sounds not very friendly or welcoming. It is just like imposing onces opinion on another. But I also saw you changed some of your wordings, when posting. Ok, let's discuss on the topic itself, over at the NC (Chinese) page? TrueColour (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not think that we need discussion before reverting the moves against naming conventions. I have given the link to Naming conventions (Chinese) at every article's edit summary, and I did not revert any of your moves for lakes in other countries than China. I reverted only your moves because I recently only found that you moved so lot of articles. If I had found someone else, I would have also reverted theirs as well. I am not a native English speaker. If "thanks for your understanding" sounds not very friendly or welcoming to you, I apologize. It's great that you discuss at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) now. As I said, I personally do not have any preference on which on should be the naming convention. You may feel free to move those articles if you successfully change the rules. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I like to ask you why move all the stuff first. If the convention was not applied to all the articles, your personal preference is also not applied to all the articles anyway. As for the persons who invented the current naming convention, you may check the edit history of Naming conventions (Chinese). Thanks.--Pengyanan (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

When I moved back the articles you had moved, the naming convention was not under dispute. And if it is under dispute, you should not move them first. Thanks.--Pengyanan (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the disputes on the talk page when the dispute tag was added had nothing to do with the names of lakes and mountains. And, as I said, if there is a dispute, the current titles should be moved first until the new consensus is reached. And as I said more than once, I personally do not have any preference on which one should be adopted as the naming convention. Please reach the consensus and I will follow it. Thanks for your discussion. --Pengyanan (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing article names
I have initiated a discussion at User_talk:Neo-Jay. I have also posted at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese). I hope it is appropriate to post on Neo-Jay/Pengyanan's page. Also, I am confused about the user's name. I don't understand why there are two. Would you like to comment? Best, --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:RM
You are welcome. The process of Requested moves is complicated. You can make it for the next time. I am neutral on the Mount Wuzhi/Wuzhi Mountain issue now. Regards. --Pengyanan (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Virtual kittens for you after that messy discussion. Now, is that "X Kitten" or "Kitten X"???? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lakes
Well, It was a convention some time ago. Apparently no more. No big deal, but creates a confusion: half pages are "Lake XX", half "XX Lake". Introduces extra hasle when a new page created. Anyway, I am not of the "lake task force", so I leave the judement to others. Happy move wars :-) - Altenmann >t 04:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

volcanoes
Of course Calbuco appears in the same pages as volcano, as your search tells you - but in the vast majority of those pages the volcano is referred to as Calbuco in the text, not as "Calbuco Volcano", together, with that capitalisation. This is standard English usage for volcanoes, and borne out by the sources for the article which refer to "Calbuco is..." etc.

Per WP:BRD, when your edit is challenged and reverted, you should really be taking it to WP:RM. If you feel there is strong evidence using that phrase capitalised in that way is more common in English, then open a move request. Knepflerle (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Calbuco
Please use Talk:Calbuco. TrueColour (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR report
See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring on Calbuco (disambiguation). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that only TrueColour was blocked and e.g. PamD was not blocked. Is this fair? Also, it were not pure reverts, and the first page versions where different from the latter, there was evolution on the page. TrueColour did create stubs etc. TheCalbuco (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Red link - policy unilateraly modified by JHunterJ
Related to the 3RR block and the deletion of red links by JHunterJ, here is some research result: Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. Will you make a comment? TheCalbuco (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI - policy violation by JHunterJ
Here are the closing notes of Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586 "JHunterJ can't breach policy he writes himself." Well, but he violated the page deletion policy too. Or is he writing this too? And where is the rule, that when you write a policy you cannot violate it? TheCalbuco (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Algés River
Hi,

I tried to update the following into the article, but when you make  what it show up is a kid and a cat!!!

Any ideias?

Thanks, JoniFili (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
__NOINDEX__

Your contributed article, Tensift (region)


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Tensift (region). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Marrakesh-Tensift-El Haouz. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Marrakesh-Tensift-El Haouz - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Tachfin (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Postal codes in Honduras


A tag has been placed on Postal codes in Honduras requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ΔT The only constant 00:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Khalkhyn Gol
In 2009, you were involved in a discussion concerning a potential move of Khalkhyn Gol into Khalkhyn gol. The article has been proposed for moving again, see Talk:Halh River. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Santa Cruz Department, Chile


The article Santa Cruz Department, Chile has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced, non-notable government department; fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG"

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Abadia River for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abadia River is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Abadia River until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MB 02:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Postal codes in Barbados for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Postal codes in Barbados is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Postal codes in Barbados until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TartarTorte 03:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Fontão River for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fontão River is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fontão River until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Lenticel ( talk ) 01:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)