Schwyz

Welcome!

Hello, Schwyz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Switzerland

Hello, thanks for all your contributions to the Switzerland district articles. You might be interested in joining WikiProject Switzerland. Here's a little information.

If you are interested in Switzerland-related themes, you may want to check out the Switzerland Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to Switzerland related articles you may want to join WikiProject Switzerland.

Tobyc75 (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. I do hope you are here to help translate many of the Swiss municipalities from German as most of them are empty stubs. I was almost tempted to AFD Subdivisions of the canton of Valais however until I saw the purpose of the Bern page given the recent change in divisions. I hope you can expand this or at least turn it into a disambiguation page. Most of the articles look like Bure, Switzerland. It would be great if you could expand them from German wikipedia into english! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a big pity. These articles are neglected. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Breggia

I hope you are going to fix all the incoming links to what you (perfectly reasonably) turned into a disambiguation page. Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN - fix yourself if you like. Your hope is in vain. It is not my duty to do anything. This is a voluntary project.Schwyz (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN is of no relevance that I can see. But think about what you did, which was to turn a lot of perfectly good links to a river into not very good links to a dab page. In other words you made Wikipedia a somewhat worse encyclopædia. And now you say that you intend to leave it to other people to clear up the little messes you made. I suggest that you review that decision. Please also read WP:USURPTITLE, which states rather clearly that ‘If you do decide to boldly usurp a title, it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title.’

Incidentally, the naming convention which applies when disambiguating rivers in Switzerland (and in most of Europe) is here: Inn (river), rather than Inn River, for instance.

Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

@ "But think about what you did, which was to turn a lot of perfectly good links to a river into not very good links to a dab page." - This is a misrepresentation. Incoming links referred to the river AND the municipality. So, I made WP not "somewhat worse encyclopædia" but indeed "somewhat better encyclopædia". No more surprises to the municipality link users. Instead both parties got a dab. And, even better, tools and editors can perfectly see that there is need of work. People specialized in fixing this, e.g. with WP:AWB can do so.

@ " And now you say that you intend to leave it to other people to clear up the little messes you made." - I didn't say this.

@ USURPTITLE, it reads: "If there are so many pages linking to the old title, that you feel you cannot make all the changes yourself, or for any other reason, you feel you cannot change them all yourself, place the template {{converted}} at the top of the new page you created on the old title. This will let others know that this move was recently made, and that all these changes are necessary." - Next time a will place the template. Thanks for pointing. Maybe next time on informing a user, you may change the surround wording. Maybe just direct the user to USURPTITLE.

@ Inn River - I think I created a new river page by the Inn River convention. Don't recall which it was, maybe you can just move it. Schwyz (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sense River

The article Sense River has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable geographical feature which gets no mention in the main article Fribourg_(canton)#Geography.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Haruth (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Tayabas Isthmus

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Tayabas Isthmus, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Quezon. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot 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) 21:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mita Aporo

The article Mita Aporo has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Marcus Qwertyus 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Champotón Municipality

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Champotón Municipality, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://dbpedia.org/page/Champotón. 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. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

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) 09:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Real Audiencia of Buenos Aires page move

Hello. Can I ask why did you rename (move) this page? Unless I missed something, there is no discussion or consensus. I would have appreciated a discussion in the article's talk page and also a discussion, or at the very east having informed the WikiProject Argentina which, as shown in the talk page is very interested in articles relating to Argentina's history. Before we return it to the way it was, pending discussion and consensus, I would like to hear your reasoning. You can answer here but it would be more appropriate to do it in the article's talk page or open a case in the wikiproject. Thank you -- Alexf^(talk) 22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of word "audience"

Contribution of User:TriniMuñoz moved to: Talk:Audiencia_Real Schwyz (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mita Aporo

The article Mita Aporo has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kudpung (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Venezuelan states

Just to let you know there is a naming discussion at Talk:Falcón which affects the categories and articles on Venezuelan states which you have moved and requested deletions for. Green Giant (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

why should I, if there is a 1:1 relation? What if later people decide to have the article at "Province of Cartagena" (B), instead of Cartagena Province (A) then in the above linked article there is [A|B] linking to B. And one cannot determine from What-Links-Here what is used in texts. Texts can use as link what they have as text if there is 1:1 relation. Schwyz (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it's messy. Sure you can't determine from "What Links Here" what is used in the text, but are we really going to propose that the article title be changed to Cartagena Province instead of Province of Cartagena because the former is the easier, quicker English form? (In the example given, the use of "poodle" should lead to the creation of an article on poodles.) But I'll let this one go because the Manual of Style does say "Instead, write simply poodle and let the system handle the rest." My apologies for being rash.

Another concern that I do have is the extensive creation of red links. As the Manual of Style recommends, "one should write the article first." You've created many Wikilinks for audiencias like the Audiencia of Seville, Aragon, Las Palmas, etc. But do these audiencias really need articles in the English-language Wikipedia? Is there actually even source material—not primary sources, but secondary sources—for these audiencias out there? (From what I've seen, I would say no.) Most of these don't even have articles in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Unlike the American audiencias, these audiencias remain primarily judicial districts. In America, the audiencias became an important focus of geographic identity, seen by the fact that most of the South American nations that emerged are based on these audiencias—not on viceroyalties nor pre-Columbian entities. So, that is why more has been written about them and why the deserve individual articles, or at least redirects to the corresponding viceroyalty or captaincy general when there is a one-to-one correspondence.

As to the use of the term cancillería, I would just omit it after the first mention. This is what both the documents of the time and the historiography in English and Spanish do, since the latter term is not that essential. Best, TriniMuñoz (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mita Aporo

I have nominated Mita Aporo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mita Aporo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kudpung (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the notice with the reason "sources are given"? Just because they exist does not mean that the article will not be deleted. Furthermore, what do you not understand about "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled"? Please do not remove the notice and instead comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mita Aporo. I strongly advise you to read WP:AfD to better understand this process. —fetch·comms 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, what do you not understand about "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled"? - Nothing. It is a very clear message: until the issue is solved. It is solved, sources are given in the article. Schwyz (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected: I thought it was again this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mita_Aporo&oldid=376245060 - the bio template. Ok, sorry for my mistake. best regards. Schwyz (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Very, well, thank you for the explanation. Sometimes, it feels as if there really are too many deletion methods here. —fetch·comms 01:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

;-) Schwyz (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of NZ provinces

Hello, I see that you are doing a lot of work on provinces all around the world. You've moved New Ulster, New Munster and New Leinster to new article names, adding 'Province'. Your rationale was to have them "like others in Category:Provinces of New Zealand.

First of all, thanks for not just moving the articles, but to then also tidy up the respective template. But it would have been much more appropriate if you had dropped a note on the talk page of one of the articles, or gone to the NZ politics taskforce (as per the banners on the talk pages) with this proposal first. The difference between these first three Provinces, and the later 10 Provinces, is that the names of the later Provinces are still in use these days, so the articles do need that disambiguation, whereas the first three names are not in use at all. So if you had asked, we would probably have come to the conclusion of not moving the articles.

I shall bring this up with the taskforce and we'll go from there. If you come across other articles within the scope of that taskforce, please be so kind and ask first whether there's support for things like that. Please drop a talkback template onto my talkpage if you wish to respond. Schwede66 00:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bau Island

See Talk:Bau Island Schwyz (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Islands of Fiji

Kadavu

Hi Schwyz, I see you converted Kadavu into a disambig. Per WP:FIXDABLINKS, could you clean up the links that now point to a disambig? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 11:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I try, but sometimes it's impossible what the article author had in mind when creating the link. Schwyz (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no problem there. We definitely don't want any guesses - it's just a request to do the straightforward cleanup. --JaGa^talk 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tavua and Lomaiviti

Oh, and these too. :) Tavua links and Lomaiviti links --JaGa^talk 11:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of bad links in the Fiji related articles.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Ah_Koy&diff=prev&oldid=376923737

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burebasaga_Confederacy&diff=prev&oldid=376923521

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Local_government_in_Fiji&action=historysubmit&diff=376923251&oldid=373297274 wrong links for districts

Schwyz (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Another cleanup request

Throw Province of Pomerania and José Serrano on the pile of dabs needing some WP:FIXDABLINKS lovin'. --JaGa^talk 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you help with cleaning the bad links that float around? Schwyz (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hold your horses on Philippine provinces move fest

I still maintain those moves had ZERO discussion, let alone consensus. I will move all of them back except for those which are already in dabbed prior to the mass moves. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass moves of User:Schwyz. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Which moves do you refer to? What is mass move ? Are you on a rant? Wikipedia:Harassment? Schwyz (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Island moves

Hi Schwyz,

I must say I'm getting very concerned about what I'm seeing in your edit history. You've moved a ton of islands to capital-I island names, like Teja island -> Teja Island, Kadavu -> Kadavu Island, and my personal favorite, Isla Colon -> Colon Island. I've counted at least 20 moves like this, and doubt these moves have been discussed. What's more, I'm not convinced that Island is definitely part of the most common proper name for these islands. Moving Greenland to Greenland Island would be bad, because we all know it isn't called that. I'm worried these moves could be a similar problem. --JaGa^talk 09:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

* Teja island -> Teja Island : No single one has it lower case in Category:Islands of Chile

* Kadavu -> Kadavu Island: If disambiguation is needed, then it is X Island for all in Category:Islands of Fiji. Related here is my move Bau (island) -> Bau Island, which was the only one. I moved it back to where it was before one user actually turned it into the for Fiji islands uncommon way.

* Isla Colon -> Colon Island: Sorry if that is a problem, simply move it back if you like. My idea was WP:UE and the way most other Latin America countries write the island names, specifically the "Isla X" named ones. If Panama needs an exception, so be it.

Anything else? I kindly ask you to check the actual moves first and directly address any real problems with individual moves. Only the fact, that I fix a lot of names does not mean the individual moves are worse than if carried out by individual users. What counts is justification for each single move. If you have concerns which other ones, please write down the concern on each individual talk page, so other people can profit from the talks. My user page is the wrong place. For Greenland, not sure you talk about the Greenland Island or the state of Greenland. Schwyz (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is I don't think you're doing enough research before you do your moves. You move a LOT of pages very quickly and without discussion. That isn't the right way to do things. I'm going to have to bring this up for discussion; I'll let you know when I do. --JaGa^talk 09:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My question got merged into the general ANI thread. Please don't feel like this is an attack - I like your drive to organize and make sense of everything - but this needs review. --JaGa^talk 11:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Moves

First you should be aware of Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Need a move review of User:Schwyz.

I'm also very, very concerned about your moves in particular:

• Municipalities. You've moved a lot of municipality articles and the edit summary you leave mentions a talk page. This talk page just mentions what you're going to do and references something one person said two years ago. this is not really consensus, especially when adding "municipality" to articles that didn't previously have that word in their title,
• Unnecessary disambiguation. For example Sigatoka, Fiji probably does not need to be disambiguated by country and Gortynia Province probably does not need province on the end. As there are no naming conventions that apply at the very least I'd expect to see a requested move made so a discussion could be had.
• Lack of edit summaries. Many of your moves on 30 and 31 July lack any sort of summary to explain what you did.
• Uniformity. Many of your moves seem to be trying to get uniformity within a category, but where there is more than one format within a category, both of which are used a reasonable amount, there probably needs to be a discussion. You also often quote "like others in Category:Provinces" for your reason but it's quite possible (even likely) that we would use different styles for provinces in different countries depending on how they're commonly referred to in English.
• Speed. I'm also worried that you're making moves too quickly to properly research them.

I've added some comments to the already started ANI thread. Dpmuk (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Municiplaites Which municipality moves do you not like?
• Unnecessary disambiguation. You say - For example Sigatoka, Fiji probably ...Gortynia Province probably... please address these "probably things" on the respective talk pages.
• Uniformity Which sets of provinces you think should be named different in the English Wikipedia, for which reason?
• Lack of edit summaries Please tell me which one'S exactly you refer to.
• Speed Where is it forbidden to edit fast?

Schwyz (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're missing the point that both other editors and I are making. We're concerned about the pattern of your moves rather than any particular ones - I could list particular ones but it would be most of the one's you've made. You should stop asking asking for specific examples and using this as a way to discount our comments.

• Municipalities. My concern here is a general concern that you've base your move on unsound reasoning - therefore it's every move that uses the edit summary referencing Talk:Municipalities_of_Mexico#Naming. There certainly wasn't consensus for these moves based on that discussion.
• Unnecessary disambiguation. Again my concern here is more general. Firstly that you may not understand when we disambiguate on wikipedia and secondly that you don't realise that these moves may be controversial and so should be dealt with by a requested move so as to gain consensus before a move is made.
• Uniformity. I'm not saying they should be the different, merely that they could be - can you point me to anywhere that says they must be the same. Did you research this before you made the moves and find a policy or guideline that says they should all be the same?
• Lack of edit summaries Just look in your move log and you will see several (at least 10s) of moves without any comment - these are the one's to which I refer.
• Speed. Speed itself isn't a concern but taken with the other concerns it leaves me thinking you're not investigating / thinking about these moves enough before doing them.

In short my concern isn't with any particular move but with how you are making them. Dpmuk (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you should not come here to make a point WP:POINT. But rather help to improve content.

• Talk:Municipalities_of_Mexico#Naming - why don't you engage in discussion there? No one raised a concern. In edit summaries I referenced this page for discussion - nobody has raised a problem with the moves.
• Unnecessary disambiguation. Again my concern here is more general. - so nothing really wrong, you just want to Wikipedia:Harassment Firstly that you may not understand when we disambiguate on Wikipedia - "When we" - I don't who is "we" - and secondly that you don't realise that these moves may be controversial - I realize that they are controversial to you, but you don't say why they are for Wikipedia.

• Uniformity. I'm not saying they should be the different, merely that they could be - You said, it would be likely- can you point me to anywhere that says they must be the same. No. And I don't think they must. But they can. And a large community of editors supports this. Probably more than the group you refer to by "we"
• Lack of edit summaries - Just look in your move log and you will see several (at least 10s) of moves without any comment - these are the one's to which I refer. Sorry, I don't know how to do this.
• Speed. Speed itself isn't a concern but taken with the other concerns it leaves me thinking you're not investigating / thinking about these moves enough before doing them. - Aehm sorry. My brain is fast. And I DID research and think about the matter. Still sometimes I may do errors, which I am sorry for. E.g. I moved back Colon Island.

Schwyz (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to make a point. I'm here because I have a genuine concern about your actions. I'm not sure what the right answer is for many of the moves you made but I do believe many (if not all) of them needed a discussion and consensus formed before making them. Having articles at a sensible title helps readers and often the only way to find out what is the most sensible title is to get a consensus. Yes, no one raised concerns at Talk:Municipalities_of_Mexico#Naming but by the same token no one commented at all, so this is not a valid consensus. It probably just means that interested parties didn't see it, this is why we have WP:RM. If a move is "controversial" for any editor then we treat it as controversial (again see WP:RM). Can you point me to the discussion where a group of editors agree that uniformity across all province articles is the way to go (coincidently at least one edit above has told you they didn't think it was). Your logs are here. You have to go back a bit to see the moves to which I refer. You still don't seem to be getting my point so hopefully enough editor will come along and comment as well, as that may help clear things up. Dpmuk (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I note that in the last week 8 editors have now raised concerns about your moves (User:Alexf, User:TriniMuñoz, User:HerkusMonte, User:Schwede66, User:ukexpat, User:Howard_the_Duck, User:JaGa and myself). Does this not make you think that you are possibly doing something wrong? Dpmuk (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There are ca 1250 entries in the log, all moves. Assuming 50% is talk, that would be 625 moved pages. If some pages had no talk, it would make 625 real moves. So, out of 625 there are 10 or so controversial ones. Did you check, how much my moves improved WP? How much stuff got better organized? How much false links I resolved?

• Did you check what ukexpat brought up, namely "Bau (island)", a format mo other island in the Fijis used, and that only was created by himself shortly before by a move? Why don't you go to ukexpat and raise concerns?
• HDT spoke of mass moves of Philippine provinces, it turned out that I moved three. Leyte had massive wrong incoming links. Mostly the links meant the island, not the province. Why don't you go to HDT and raise concerns about how he approaches other people?
• With Trini I am in contact and we will find a good solution for the Audiencias.
• Alexf, seems to think the Audiencia Real of Buenos Aires was an Argentine institution, but it was not, it was one of the Spanish Empire.
• Schwede66, issue was brought to NZ task force, and is solved. Article will stay where I moved them.
• JaGa - likes that I organize things better. Still has concerns, but every article specific one is addressed, Colon Island moved back to Isla Colon, a Spanish-English mix name - if that is what WP wants.
• HerkusMonte - I will address this later and go through WP:RM.

You had concerns, because some moves had no edit summary: I am sorry for that, but it seems that is only a small number, and sometimes it was done, when it really was clear why. Still, I am sorry for that. You have concerns over speed, but I think I am really a master on detecting false incoming links. Different formats for naming municipalities in Latin America, which often have the same basic name, will trigger lots of false links. By using a uniform naming scheme, clashes are detected earlier. San Jose (municipality), San Jose Municipality, Municipality of San Jose, coexist, and editors will easily create wrong links simply by accident. You say Yes, no one raised concerns at Talk:Municipalities_of_Mexico#Naming but by the same token no one commented at all, so this is not a valid consensus. - and still, you make an issue out of nothing. The moves were straightforward. Even after moving, no one came. I guess some people have the pages on their watch lists. PLEASE stay out of my talk page, I regard your comments as Wikipedia:Harassment, if you don't have _any_ specific concerns regarding article moves. Tell me, if you think any move was wrong, and we can find a solution. Schwyz (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to you in two places. I am copying my comments here:

• In Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Need a move review of User:Schwyz

  I have reverted Governorate of Estonia and Governorate of Livonia. Now I see that none of the rationales make any sense. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• In Talk:Municipalities of Mexico#Naming

  Unless you can provide an official translation of the Spanish name in the form of "XXX Municipality" – with a capital M – the "XXX (municipality)" disambiguated for should be used. This is not only a question of the name of the article, you are also implying that the name of Tijuana is "Tijuana Municipality". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Piar Municipality, Monagas

A tag has been placed on Piar Municipality, Monagas 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. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Train2104 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Caripe Municipality

A tag has been placed on Caripe Municipality 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. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Train2104 (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Magdalena Municipality and Porvenir

Hi Schwyz, here's a couple more dabs you've created that need cleaning up per WP:FIXDABLINKS. Could you help out? --JaGa^talk 10:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Great work on your articles created

I would like to say, great work on the articles you've created! I've requested that you have autopatrolled permissions here. I recommend that you get reviewer permissions here. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I do my best. Schwyz (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

I have no desire to argue about something as silly as this, but please note that the guideline you cited works both ways. While there is nothing wrong with linking to an article via a redirect, there is equally nothing wrong with linking to it using a piped link. Edits which merely switch between these two approaches and add nothing else of value (like this) should be avoided. While I shouldn't be changing redirects to piped links just for the sake of avoiding the redirect, you also shouldn't be changing piped links into redirects just for the sake of removing a piped link. There's a reason why one of the shortcuts to that guideline is called WP:NOTBROKEN. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 17:26 (UTC)

My comment was in no form intended as an attack; if you saw it as such, please accept my most sincere apologies. It is, however, my personal opinion that edits like this are silly. This particular edit did not make any improvements; it did not fix anything; it merely constituted a technical interpretation of an editing guideline (not even a policy). One or two such edits don't make much difference, but I wanted to point this out to you just in case you decide to do it systematically, in which case it would be a waste of everyone's time (including yours) indeed. Hence my comment (and it is in "so many words" simply because I have a propensity to blabber).

As for the literal interpretation of the guidelines, please note that their intent is usually to prevent misunderstandings and useless reverts (like ours). In general sense (not just within this guideline), when something is not broken, it is counterproductive to "fix" it. This is why we never change British spellings to American and vice versa, switch between different date formats, or between link styles unless something obviously needs fixing or otherwise creates problems. With Turan, no problem existed before your edit, no problem was solved during your edit, and no problem appeared after your edit. All in all, your edit was pointless. In such cases it is always best to stick with what's already in place, especially because there just might be other reasons why the original contrubitor chose one style over another; reasons you might not be aware of. In case of Turan, for example, piped link style is typical in vast majority of articles about the Russian inhabited localities. With your desire to achieve universal consistency, surely there should be some appeal in preserving the consistency which is already in place? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 18:16 (UTC)

Oh lighten up, will ya. You are more than welcome to call my edits silly in return; in the hindsight, this definitely was one. As for the disambigs, why not create one first and then change the links? Or at least hint in the edit summary that you are making the changes in preparation of a new disambig page? There is no need to do the preparations "just in case"; what even makes you think that the people who will eventually create the disambig page for those theoretical "other entities" won't take care of the resulting incorrect links on their own?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 18:49 (UTC)

FYI

This is to inform you that I requested a move you recently performed to be undone per BRD. I filed a respective request at AN/I, where I outlined my rationale. If you insist on the new title, let's discuss that first in a RM. Regards, Skäpperöd (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked at here for your moves of Swiss and Austrian municipalities to be reverted The names you have chosen for these articles are not the most common name in English for the districts, and so fail our guidlines at WP:AT. At the very least, we should have a well-advertised and attended requested move discussion first. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Country subdivisions

Do you mean in country articles? If so I'd support that as an overivew of admin divisions in a country. Might bloat the article though. If this is not what you mean please explain exactly the sort of articles you want these tables in. Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I requested that another recent page move of yours be undone at AN/I. Please use WP:RM. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The former revert introduced wrong incoming links. You didn't mention WP:PT for your former revert request, you only mentioned "Pomerania Province" vs "Province of Pomerania". Schwyz (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop changing links to the Province of Pomerania article, since as you are aware there is an active request that the article is moved to its previous title. All your edits will have to be undone once the request is acted upon. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am doing disambiguation work. Stop harassing me. It is nothing wrong to have clear links, they don't need to be undone. Schwyz (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I requested a block as you do not stop, in the AN/I thread linked above. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a block for disambiguation work? Stop WP:HAR! Schwyz (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, requesting a block because you do not stop linking to a new controversial title while a request is active that the move be undone. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The title is not controversial. It is a valid redirect title at least. Schwyz (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you fixed it. I am sorry, something went wrong with the software. I didn't see the other talk in my edit box. I didn't see section edit buttons, pressed editing full page editing and then I don't know. Now the section edit buttons are back. Weird. Schwyz (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was linked to the oldid version of the page. Ok, I'll take more care in the future. Schwyz (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old "editing previous version" trick eh? You're not the first to have made that mistake ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

- ;-) Thanks. So the last message I receive before I leave is a friendly one, that is nice :-). Have a nice time here! Schwyz (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Schwyz

You should probably be aware of the above. Given your previous comments this is all I intend to post on your talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want, nor have I ever wanted, you to leave the project. I think you make valuable contributions and what you are trying to do is a good thing. I feel certain that if you listened to other editors and modified your behaviour slightly you'd become a very valued member of the community. Dpmuk (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am listing, but I don't let stalkers command my editing. If you want to do me any favor: keep an eye on the Pomerania provinces articles. The title Province of Pomerania triggered several wrong incoming links, as documented on the WP:RM I started. Schwyz (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

I opened an SPI case concerned with you here. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for avoiding scrutiny by editing with another account. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Blurpeace 21:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

This account has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Wil District

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Wil District. 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 – Wil (Wahlkreis). 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 Wil (Wahlkreis) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 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. HapHaxion (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Delta Amacuro (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Delta Amacuro (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zulia Canton

The article Zulia Canton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks WP:SOURCES, last Edit 2012

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)