User talk:Jaraalbe

This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

As of February 2020 has been in top 1000 since 2006, despite being dormant since 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Jaraalbe, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
• Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

I think I had an edit conflict with you on the Worcester article. Please check that all your recent edits have taken effect. Arcturus 18:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Middle Ring Road (Tianjin)

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.

A tag has been placed on Middle Ring Road (Tianjin) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. 98.74.156.204 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Beer by Country

I actually dont think Category:Beer by country is necessary. I have spent a lot of time sorting out classification in beer articles. And if you make changes in classification you must change all the articles not just a few of them, and discuss it first on the main beer page or the beer project page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beer. I know some categories have x by nationality and similar, but this doesnt really fit into the classification guidelines, and the category is not yet unmangeably large. Justinc 13:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Also, articles should not appear in both a category and a subcategory, so everything in beer by country should have been removed from category beer. Justinc 13:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Kitchen Explosives Rename

Category:Kitchen Explosives could be renamed to something like Homemade Explosives. helohe 08:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Taylor number

Thanks for the edits. Petwil 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Metal minerals category

Hi - just noticed your recent Category:Metal minerals and wondered about the rationale for it. Seems the vast majority of minerals have metals in their structure - or were you limiting your definition to base metals and precious metals or some such. Without further defining the cat is essentially redundant with Category:Minerals. I've not seen such a classification before - so am seeking clarification. Thanks, Vsmith 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

geodis

was created without consensus and is currently being phased out Tedernst | talk 23:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just put the page in the category manually. Tedernst | talk 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

help

Someone keeps deleting niter.

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

CASREF print problems

Hi,

I notice you are adding CASREF templates to many articles. However there is a reason that WP:Chem does not use this template in the infobox- it causes print problems in Firefox and some other browsers. If you click on "Print this article" or do a print preview you'll see what I mean - the ref expands out so the box fills up much of the page. We have a strict policy of no external refs in the chembox. I recently reported this problem to the Drugs WikiProject, they were unaware of it previously.

If you can find a better way to do this, I'd like to hear. We've considered an inline ref to an endnote that would link to the NIST site, but that's a bit clunky. Any better ideas? Walkerma 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

ChemInfoBox

I changed the Molar Mass section of your ChemInfoBox for Chemical ZnSe. You had listed 81.41 g/mol, but it is a known fact that the Molar Mass of any chemical is the sum of the Molar Masses of the constituent elements, so

Se Molar Atomic Mass = 78.963 g/mol Zn Molar Atomic Mass = 65.409 g/mol

The sum is :

                     144.452 g/mol

The NIST lists it at 144.35 g/mol,

so I went with the NIST listing instead.

I have seen that 81.41 listing on other websites, and I am just curious where you got your information from.

I can be reached at <A HREF=mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]</A>

Thankyou for the correction. I do not remember where it came from, but with hindsight it is obvious. Jaraalbe 11:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Stibine

Hi Jaraalbe, I saw your comment that SbH3 has used as a fumigant. Seems surprising given its extreme instability and the greater avaiability and effectiveness of PH3 - do you have a source? --Smokefoot 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the SbH3 comment - I might have read it here: [1]. Perhaps a comment on fumigant effectiveness should be added to the article? Jaraalbe 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks, I am surprised but your source is better than my non-source so I will fix the report. --Smokefoot 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Walcher of Lorraine

Hi there. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Walcher of Lorraine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Walcher of Lorraine. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

My reason is that your stub on Walcher of Lorraine duplicates a recently revised the article on Walcher of Malvern. I think you'll agree in doing away with the duplication. --SteveMcCluskey 20:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - do away with the Walcher duplication. Jaraalbe 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC). Perhaps change to a redirect? 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding supportive citations in Hasan Prishtina article. ilir_pz 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

III-V compounds

I know that the names of GaAs, InAs, InSb etc. are formally Gallium(III) arsenide etc. However they are almost always known unambiguously as Gallium arsenside, indium antimonide etc. Therefore, your correct renaming of the articles is not useful. Less useful still is misnaming to Gallium(II) arsenide. Sorry to have to complain at this - but can you please check your recent edits. Jaraalbe 07:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Chemboxes are useful! Thanks. Jaraalbe 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos, but it wasn't me who renamed the article, I've just been putting the template {{subst:chembox simple inorganic}} in a bunch of them. Maybe you confused my edits with those of another. mastodon 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Hey, could do with your help on this: Talk:HgCdTe. The must be a reason why this article name bucks the trend... mastodon 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

Please, what is the problem? Jaraalbe 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was vandilisam. Jmclark911 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Santosh Yadav

You may withdraw unreference tag from article Santosh Yadav after having a look at reference added.Holywarrior 14:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I note that the tag has been removed. Jaraalbe 10:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Silicon dioxide

I wonder, what did you mean, when you added here [2] this:

'Silicon dioxide can be formed when silicon is exposed to oxygen (or air) at extremely high temperatures. This can occasionally happen naturally in fires, or in lightning strikes onto sand.'

I think that fires and lightnings are not a relevant example of reaction of silicon and oxygen (Talk: Silicon dioxide). --AB-fi 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Joseph (Khazar)

I have removed the category "10th century deaths" from this article. While it is most likely that Joseph died in the 10th century, the date of his death is unknown. It is not outside the realm of possiblity that he lived into the 11th century. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Theta Beta Potata PUNK HOUSE Deletion Review

Theta Beta Potata

This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cuthbert Ottaway

Thanks for taking the trouble to edit Cuthbert Ottaway. But could you explain why you have deleted three links to descriptions of early FA Cup Finals on the grounds that they are "blacklisted"? Mikedash 09:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When I attempted to submits edits to Cuthbert Ottaway, Wikipedia said that links from a domain were blacklisted, and would not save the changes. When I removed the links, I could save the changes. I naively supposed that theere must be good reason for the "blacklisting". If you have more information about the blacklisting process and how useful it is, could you please inform me? Jaraalbe 06:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, going here [3] it seems that the page on hometown.aol devoted to the 2006 World Cup is infested with spam, or spyware, so the whole domain has been blocked to prevent it spreading via Wikipedia. Or something. Nothig to do with the pages I'd linked to, but it looks like we'll have to do without them, which is a pain but certainly not your fault. Mikedash 07:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Refining Killed in action

Please revisit Gerald Archibald Arbuthnot. I have added detail. - Kittybrewster 21:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. re-visited Jaraalbe 21

45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A remarkably modern-sounding name for something being applied to articles on people who've been dead for centuries. You really think it's appropriate for Harold Godwinson ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It is appropriate as a temporary holding category, until a more appropriate sub-category is available (Category

Killed in battle / Monarchs killed in battle Anglo-Saxons killed in action ?) What would you find appropriate? Jaraalbe 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that rephrasing it is the answer. At many periods it would be of more use to record people who died in their beds, as it was considerably more unusual than dying by in war or by other sorts of violence. I can see that this is a useful category for modern wars, but I don't think it adds anything for the early modern period or before. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ono Harunaga and other samurai warriors are not soldiers/officers of the Military of Japan and thus are not "military personnel". Please stop re-categorizing them as such. LordAmeth 11:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept your point and won't classify as Military of Japan. What would be a better desciption for these historical Japanese soldiers? Jaraalbe 13:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Well, I'd suggest a "Category:Samurai killed in action" (or 'killed in battle'), which could go as a subcategory of "Pre-modern warriors killed in battle" or something like that. I'm not positive on what wording would be best to be most inclusive for warriors of other periods or places - European knights, etc. - but I'm sure something can be worked out. Thanks for your help. (If you'd like, we can certainly ask for help from the wider community at WP:MILHIST. I leave it in your capable hands.) LordAmeth 14:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Frederick Franklin

Hi: Jaraalbe, I was wondering where you found out that Franklin was KIA? If there is a source I didn't notice. It'd make my "wikitask" of improving unknown MOH winners... He clearly survived the intital action for which he was awarded the medal... so I'd appreciate your input... Cheers V. Joe 19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In categorising many killed in action, probably I have made a small number of mistakes. The year of death (1873) was close to the year of the MOH action (1871). Apologies Jaraalbe 16:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Freddy Spencer Chapman

Please look at the page you edited. I recently discovered it and have submitted a parallel biography by mistake. Please contact me to figure out how to merge these profiles. --Bofors40mm 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Main & Sub

Hello,

This message is in regards to the Article on Penleigh Boyd. I had added the Categories, Accidental deaths (which is the Main one) and the Category, Road Accident Victims (which is a sub of that). I realize that, at present, this is a controversial move at this point. However, this issue has been a source of consternation with me for some time in Wikipedia.

As it is set up now, The Article on Penleigh Boyd would not be included in the category list of accidental deaths. The encyclopedia does not have the capability of collating all the various subcategories into one master list. In another instance, Cancer deaths, if I wanted to list all of the persons in the encyclopedia who died from Cancer, I would have to call up each separate cancer type individually.

In another example, you are a researcher planning a major study of suicide; you are a clinician confronted with a patient with multiple suicide attempts; you are a student trying to learn the various aspects of the whole issue of suicide; or, you are just ghoulish – who cares. Where do you start? After you’ve read everything anyone’s ever theorized about the subject, you go to the real wealth of information: Case histories. You go to Wikipedia, and you find “Suicide”. In this main article you click on “Persons who have committed suicide: and, bam! You have a wealth of case histories to peruse. Now, if you want to focus on persons who have committed suicide by a specific method, say, by firearm, or by hanging, you click on Suicides by firearm, and again, Bam! You have it! But for both of these examples to work, the Category, Suicides must be entered in ALL of the articles, as well as the sub-category specifying the method.

Now, in another example, if you were doing a study of the impact of firearms on a society, you would first want all persons who died by firearm (of course, there may be some who would not want this complete list to be readily available, but that’s another issue for another time) you would follow the same process as with suicides.

What’s so complicated?

This “radical” notion of including both the Main & Sub-categories in the same Article has met with some resistance. What do you think?

Regards,

Michael David 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will have to spend some time thinking about this one. However, categories are generally easier to navigate if small. I would prefer that your function of listing all "Cancer deaths" say were available by a generic function operating on the database as "List category and sub-categories entries to level {1,2,3...}". What do you think about that? Meanwhile I will think some more about it (other jobs allowing!). Jaraalbe 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I need to say at the outset that you are dealing with a somewhat computer challenged person here, so please be kind :-). If by "List category and sub-categories entries to level {1,2,3...}" do you mean a command that would present sublists? My only concern, being the lazy researcher that I am, is that the computer do as much of the grind work for me as it can. I would like to know more about your above alternative.

Regards,

Michael David 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Caffaro

Was there any particular reason why you put an {{unsourced}} tag on Caffaro di Rustico da Caschifellone? It doesn't contain anything that wouldn't qualify as common knowledge, I don't think. I've been meaning to expand it for some time and will of course list sources when I do, but everything there now is contained in other encylcopedias and so on. Was there a particular statement that troubled you--perhaps that his Latin was lousy (it was. . .)? Chick Bowen 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend you - I personally believe that most people enter factual information in good faith - and no particular statement offended me. All articles in wikipedia are supposed to have sources. What might be common knowledge to you is not common knowledge to everyone. Unless a source is given people can not check the veracity of an article for themselves/ The unsourced tag also alerts all wikipedia editors monitoring the unsourced article categories: one editor might be prompted to find a source. Jaraalbe 07:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, just curious--if there was something you objected to, I would have found a source or taken it out. I do think the statement "All articles in wikipedia are supposed to have sources" is a bit overly broad, though, and our policies say nothing of the sort, but rather (in a guideline) "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Most stubs like this one don't have sources. Look, I'm all for encouraging citation, but I don't think sources should be demanded willy-nilly; if there's a reason, seems to me, put the tag; if not, why bother? Nobody other than me is likely to source this article, after all, it being a rather obscure topic. Chick Bowen 08:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not have put the unsourced tag if there had been a relevant stub category assigned. However, I re-assert my opinion that verifiablity is crucial to the authority of a wikipedia article and to wikipedia as a whole. It is almost a truism that guide-lines tend to become mandatory with time (this is an independent observation to my main point!). Jaraalbe 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Regarding the article New Ash Green - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name?

Eliko 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever, sorry. Jaraalbe 12:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First Battle of Tapae - factual questions

Please take a look at the discussion page for First Battle of Tapae, which you have worked on in the past - I am proposing that some of the content is incorrect and should be moved from the page. Please have a look at my comments and provide any cites you are aware of. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 12:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no source other than the wiki article. I suggest waiting to see if there are other responses. Jaraalbe 12:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very innocent concerning wikipedia projects and wikipedia internal politics. I think that I would prefer to converse on individual topics, but thanks very much for the invite. Jaraalbe 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis de Bruges

I'm dubious it is right to classify him as "Tudor people". All his friends were Yorkists & he seems not to have set foot in England after 1485. The Wars of the Roses category would be more appropriate I think. Johnbod 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-classify in Category:People of the Wars of the Roses, if you think there is no connection with post 1485 England. Jaraalbe 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

People of Elizabethan Ireland

Hi Jaraalbe. Just noticed you've added some articles to this category, so thanks for that. Guessing that it's out of a commitment to making WP cohere, rather than an interest in the subject, I wonder could you give me a link that explains categorisation on WP and its significance? Maybe there's a WP essay on it?--Shtove 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've picked up the 'art' of categorisation as I've gone along. I don't know any articles but my principles include the following: be logical, maintain consistency, and be flexible; split categories that are growing much beyond the 200 included on a page if a sensible division can be found; try to cross list sub-categories under at least two separate hierachies. I personally find categories very useful for navigating subjects. Glad to talk. Jaraalbe 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Time you wrote an essay then!--Shtove 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Hello,

I am writing in response to your removing the Main Category "Accidental Deaths" from the Timothy Sullivan Article. I, truly, do not want to engage in an argument about this; I am merely trying to learn something here.

The whole issue of Category use has, and is now, the subject of a rather intense debate going on in the Wikipedia Community. If you subscribe to the WikiEN-L Mailing List you probably already know that.

My question is this: where did you learn that it is inappropriate to include both the Main and Sub Categories in an Article? When I began editing WP over a year ago, this was not the case: both were included. It made it much simpler for researchers like me.

Respectfully,

Michael David 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Heinrich Burger

Hi, Thanks for taking the trouble of checking my Heinrich Burger page and correcting the categories. I appreciate it! P.M. Kernkamp 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Zemax

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Zemax, by 209.203.88.66 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Zemax is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Zemax, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you..

... for adding categories to the article, William Penn Patrick. Curious how you noticed the article though? Smee 07:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

Classification of Railway Articles

Your efforts are appreciated, but please could you mark these edits as minor. I watch a lot of pages, and all your recent changes are swamping my watchlsit, when I know that it is a small change. Canterberry 10:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will do as you ask and mark most such changes as minor. However, I think that classification into categories is an important part of an article. Jaraalbe 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And I totally agree. But all you are doing is renaming an existing category, rather than the article itself. In my mind, thats a minor edit. Canterberry 07:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On this subject, I notice that you've added a new category, Rail Transport in the West Midlands. By consensus, as there are so many articles in the area, all rail-related articles have been placed within "Transport in (metropolitan borough)" categories as subcats of "Transport in West Midlands". Now, I realise that you've simply added the new category, but as all the "Transport in (metropolitan borough)" articles are subsets of "Transport in West Midlands" - if you want to keep "Rail Transport in" cats, shouldn't we add "Rail Transport in (metropolitan borough)" as subcats of "Rail Transport in West Midlands" and "Transport in (metropolitan borough)" so as to remove excessive categorisation, whilst keeping all the rail articles together and keeping the geographical articles together?

It would mean that, say, Walsall to Wolverhampton Line would just be in "Rail Transport in Wolverhampton" and "Rail Transport in Walsall" rather than the situation since your changes of "Transport in Wolverhampton", "Transport in Walsall" and "Rail Transport in West Midlands". Hope that makes sense. Fingerpuppet 10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with creating "Rail Transport in Walsall" categories, unless it is felt generally, that this is, itself, excessive categorisation. Jaraalbe 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Somerset Categories

You seem to be doing some reclassification of article categories related to Somerset. Can I ask if you are going to look at all the sub cats? If you need any help or clarification or to discuss any of these members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset may be able to help.— Rod ^talk 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lasham Airfield

I removed the category for Transport in Hampshire that you added to Lasham Airfield. The airfield is not used for transport of any type. It is a privately owned recreational and industrial facility. JMcC (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting is the correct action if the airfield is not used for any point A to B flights. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is not in use then to Category:Defunct airports in England; but many military and recreational (powered and glider) airfields are primarily used for flights returning to the same airfield/airport after takeoff Hugo999 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Award

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For your continued work behind the scenes of Wikipedia on various issues without notice, I award you the Invisible Barnstar as a matter of thanks. Chris 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. Jaraalbe 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Houses in ...

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're doing, but when adding a category to London, it would be helpful if you could maintain the list of standard London Categories and consider the effect of adding a further category to one borough, while not changing the 32 others (including CoL). (The purpose of that list is to achieve some level of standardisation, it is not necessarily complete).

I will try to remember to do this. Jaraalbe (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It might also be worthwhile dropping a line to WP:LONDON, also. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How might I do this (excuse innocence/ignorance)? Jaraalbe (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I included the link (above), there is a discussion page associated with that project page. I apologise for my lack of clarity. Kbthompson (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Horse races established in 1952

Shouldn't Category:Horse races established in 1952 be a subcategory of Category:Recurring events established in 1952? Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In a ideal world, yes it should. It should also be a sub-category of Category:Sporting events established in xxxx, but that hierarchy does not yet exist. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Microdem maps

Hi, I just saw the topographic relief maps you have made from SRTM data using Microdem and uploaded to (the?) Commons in 2006. I think they are beautiful and wondered how much of your time and effort went into making a map like Image:Guernsey_small.PNG. If there is an online manual you have followed or written, perhaps you could point to it via your (as yet empty) user page on Commons so other editors can use your method to produce other similar maps of other places. Thank you for your contributions. Wikipeditor (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

These maps are not too difficult to make. Download Microdem (look up Peter Guth microdem on Google), install, and read microdem's help. Microdem can download the SRTM data automatically. I am not really satisfied with the altitude colour choices for near sea level regions, but yes the images can be beautiful. Microdem is not the only tool for this, but is almost "plug and play" with few rough edges. Jaraalbe (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect the program to get its data automatically. Sounds not as difficult as I thought. Thanks again. Wikipeditor (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1921

Hi Jaarlbe, I saw your note about having mistakenly created Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1921, so I have deleted it and created Category:Northern Ireland Parliament constituencies established in 1921, and recategorised the articles which were in your original category. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciated. Jaraalbe (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery

It's not a museum.[4] It's a gallery showcasing a (changing) private collection. Tyrenius (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Point, noted and accepted. Jaraalbe (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category templates

Hey, thanks for being so diligent with the museum & other "established in" category templates. I set them up but got tired after dozens ... when I went back to finish them off, you'd done it already! --Lquilter (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; more hands make lighter work. Jaraalbe (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Thanks, I might visit your Wikiproject if I come across another related article I intend to edit. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Military organizations

The intent of Category:Military organizations was to cover groups that weren't actually within the military (excluding, in particular, actual units and formations). Categorizing those would be helpful, I suppose; but they should really go into distinct categories, to keep them separate from non-military bodies. I'd suggest the following:

• Category:Military units and formations by year of formation
  • Category:Military units and formations formed in 1953

Kirill 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, alternately, the standard

• Category:Military units and formations by year of establishment
  • Category:Military units and formations established in 1953

to avoid the awkward "formations formed" bit. :-) Kirill 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable. Most of the articles that I have categorised are military units and formations. What do you think is the best process for a transfer? Can we avoid a complete manual renaming? Jaraalbe (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As you're the only editor to have worked on the sub-categories, you could probably get away with asking for a speedy renaming; that would eliminate the need to rename things by hand. I'm not sure if that'll work, so we'll keep the manual renaming as a backup plan; so long as additional categories are created with the new names, moving the current set by hand should still be feasible (if not particularly interesting). Kirill 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi -- I was just thinking about renaming Category:Military organizations to Category:Military-related organizations to make it clearer that this is not organizations of the military. What do you two think? --Lquilter (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that might make the distinction between organization of the military and Category:Military-related organizations more clear. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. (Or perhaps Category:Organizations associated with the military? I'm not sure what the normal naming of such categories is.) Kirill 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Now listed for cfr. Jaraalbe (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Defunct magazines of the United Kingdom

That's a worthy effort. I added The Face. No article for Rave :( Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Smash Hits, and Record Mirror. I see that Melody Maker is in the Category:Defunct newspapers of the United Kingdom - possibly some of the the other music weeklies should be moved there? Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the comments. I hope to diffuse some more of the articles in Category:Defunct magazines of the United Kingdom. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of your recent edits in Category:Defunct magazines and sub-categories

You recently removed Fantasy Fiction (magazine) and another magazine from "Category:Science fiction magazines" on the premise that they are already covered by the more specific "Categories: Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States". While that may seem like a good idea there aren’t sub-categories for all the different types of Science fiction magazines. Since "Category:Science fiction magazines" covers all of the types of SF magazines all of them (including the ones in "Categories: Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States") are already listed there.

Now of course if you are planning on creating the following subcategories, listing them under "Category:Science fiction magazines" and then putting all of the science fiction magazines in one of these subcategories that would be great.

• Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States
• Category:Current science fiction magazines of the United States
• Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom
• Category:Current science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom
• Category:Defunct science fiction magazines from other countries
• Category:Current science fiction magazines from other countries

Pmcalduff (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I fail to understand your criticism. "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" is a member of "Category:Defunct magazines of the United States", which in turn in a member of "Category:American magazines". "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" is also a member of "Category:Science fiction magazines". "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" is a member of "Category:Defunct magazines of the United States" which is a member of "Category:Defunct magazines by country", a member of "Category:Defunct magazines". Therefore "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" covers all the categories that I deleted from Fantasy Fiction (magazine). I will consider your suggestion to make "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom", as there are a number of such magazines. It think it best to leave those published in multiple countries in "Category:Science fiction magazines", and not to create "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines from other countries", but wait until several appear from a particular country and create a specific country category. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess my real problem was that you moved two defunct American magazines out of the "Category:Science fiction magazines" and into "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" but left 39 other defunct American magazines in the "Category:Science fiction magazines" which resulted in having some of them in one category and some of them in another which will cause a lot of confusion for anyone trying to find them. Pmcalduff (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is temporary, if you have no further objection, I will edit the others this weekend. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The remainder of articles covered by the template DefunctAmericanSFMagazines have been edited. I'll continue checking the parent catgeories. Jaraalbe (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good. What are your thoughts on creating categories for current magazines?

• Category:Current science fiction magazines of the United States
• Category:Current science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom

By the way, if you want we could divide up the work.Pmcalduff (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom". When I finished that I created the following templates to go with the DefunctAmericanSFMagazines template:

That's great. However, we must watch against the charge of overclassification. We also can not create country specific categories unless the statistical distribution of articles guides us in that direction. Jaraalbe (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. After I made the "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom" I noticed that only had four magazines in it which is why when I created the template for British magazines I combined the Defunct and Current magazines into one template.

By the way, I noticed on your profile that you're from the UK. What’s better "British magazines" or "United Kingdom magazines"? ("United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland magazines" is way to long to consider) Pmcalduff (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"British magazines" is probably the best format, next best being "Magazines of the United Kingdom". The defunct categories have settled on the "...of the country" format.

Royal New Zealand Navy World War II minesweepers

Hi Jaraalbe. You recently created the above category. However the name does not conform to Wikipedia country-specific naming conventions. The country should come last. A better and shorter name would be World War II minesweepers of New Zealand. You can see from these subcategories that this better conforms with existing practice. However I don't know how to rename categories! --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that information about item of country categories, I was not aware of that. I will consider requesting a re-name, as this probably does fall into that class. I don't know how to re-name categories, but I know how to start process for re-name requests (see Category:Categories for discussion, Category:Categories for renaming). Jaraalbe (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain

Any chance you might turn your hand to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain and its subcats. I've been having a bit of a discussion with User:Benkenobi18 over some aspects of it, but I think the categories could do with a root and branch reform, and I don't really have much experience in that area. functionally the Church is divided into two, England and Wales are grouped together as one hierarchy, and Scotland as a separate one, so I htink this should be reflected in the structure. Within these, Dioceses are the main organisational blocks. David Underdown (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly in a few weeks time, if no-one has tidied it then. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Green Lane Masjid

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Green Lane Masjid, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Green Lane Masjid. EmmetCaulfield (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ayrshire Yeomanry

Hi, I am actually a serving officer in this unit and had previously created a page named with the full regimental title. I will be expanding the page even further over the next while as part of a regimental project for the whole QOY. My problem is that because your page does not include the (Earl of Carrick's Own) piece in the middle of its title it is more sucessful in searches. Would you consider redirecting your page to mine? Ayrshire_(Earl_of_Carrick's_Own)_Yeomanry Jwkyle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not my page! I only edited it. Please ensure all relevant and correct information from it is on your page and this one can become a redirect. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Biblical art.

Please put these in the correct sub-categories, like Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary and Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus - both of these have statues subcats. Are you going to delete Cat Biblical art when done? There seems little point to it now. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be more useful to set up a Category:Paintings depicting Jesus sub-cat to match the Mary one, which could then be a sub-category of both. Most of the biblical art ones are not in the current Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus, where they should be. A Virgin and Chld only need go in the Mary category I feel - I am adding a note to the Jesus category to say this. A Pieta should go in both. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Biblical art includes more forms of art than paintings. Biblical themes are also not just limited to Mary and Jesus. For example, all art depicting Old testament themes. There is, therefore, a requirement for a parent category. Christian art includes that which is not biblical, such as depictions of 2nd century and later saints; so there is a distinction between biblical art and Christian art. I agree that for completeness there should be a Category:Paintings depicting Jesus category (and possibly even a sub-cat on cruxifications). If you have a stronger argument, I would consider deletion. Thank you for the comment, sometimes it is good just to have some notice. Jaraalbe (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree in theory, but there is now nothing left in the cat now except the Bosch garden, which could/should as well be in a Xtian cat, as it certainly depicts no specific scene in OT or NT, & the museum. I'm happy to leave it to see what develops. There are certainly many paintings that could go in. One day we will have a cat for Nativities/Adoration of the Magi also. A Passion of Christ cat might be better than just a Crucifixion one, as the depositions etc could go in too. I too prefer that works of art are at least initially classified by subjerct in all media, not just paintings. Really it should be Category:Works of art by subject etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will work on classifying paintings and other works of art. Your comments will be most welcome. As to Passion/Cruxification, let us leave that for now. Jaraalbe (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice going! Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you really mean to add Handel's Zadok the Priest to a category on Biblical art? The work is definitely biblical, and personally, I find it artistic; however I suspect you'll open the flood gates if you allow musical works in this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HWV258 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's treat it as a test case for discussion. Would you like to expand your opinions on the Talk page for Category:Oratorios? Jaraalbe (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly (Handel's Zadok the Priest being an anthem). My opinion is that musical works should have their own category page (and sub pages) if they are to be grouped on a biblical basis (but I'll leave it to wiser Wikipedians to decide).  HWV 258  22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Museums Categories

Hi, You seem to be a real expert at sorting out categories. At the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums we tried to identify relevant categories for a bot bot to tag appropriate articles within the scope of this project & ran into all sort of difficulties (see the talk page topics: Special Interest Areas, Categories and To-do sections, Huge Category List, Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Categories, Mis-tagged categories, etc - with several; lists referenced from the discussions. Basicically many articles & sub categories were included under sub sections of Category:Museums which shouldn't have been - if you had suggestions about the best way to sort all of these out I'm sure they would be appreciated on the project talk page.— Rod ^talk 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

if I am expert, it is at manual category sorting. There are probably sufficient talented people already at work on this high profile problem. Thanks for the invite, though. Jaraalbe (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How's it going?

What's up? How are the cats and whatnot? -(BrutusCirrus (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

Rabbi cats

Hi, just to let you know there are other cats of Rabbi by period here Category:Rabbis_by_period. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, of which I was aware. Categories by century are a tighter time definition; they also fit well with other categorizations of people by century. In the case of rabbis, I do not believe that all rabbis would be given the status of Geonim, Rishonim etc., so century categories have a wider definition. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Essen in World War II

Why you added Category:1942 in Germany and Category:1943 in Germany in this article? This event is not specific to any particular year. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although, not limited to 1942 and 1943, two of the most serious raids are documentated in the article as occurring in 1942 and 1943. If any evidence appears in the article as to dates of significant raids in other years then categories for those years can also be added. Jaraalbe (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Zemax

Hi. You previously edited the article Zemax, which was subsequently deleted. The article has now been restored through a deletion review and I have merged the various past versions of the article and expanded it. You might want to take a look and see if you have anything to add.--Srleffler (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it is good to see Zemax back. It has as much right to inclusion as Oslo V etc.. I will look at it later. Jaraalbe (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cetinje Monastery

Does it really belong to the 17th century category? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was probably too quick in reclassifying. Reading the article more carefully, I see a 1485 establishment and a re-establishment in the 1700s. If you agree, one of us can chnage it. Jaraalbe (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Welsh poets

Thanks for creating the category Medieval Welsh poets and populating it so efficiently. I've added a brief note and additional cat., Category:Welsh-language poets, as they all composed in Welsh. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I came to it via Category:Medieval poets. Jaraalbe (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Léon van Hove

Would you like to do the merging of Léon van Hove and an older Léon Van Hove? Mhym (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly merged, as you suggest. Jaraalbe (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was a little confused at first when expanding Hove (disambiguation). Mhym (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

10th Regiment of Foot

Why the regiment is called "regiment of foot"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is simply an infantry regiment; they march on their feet. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

New people categories

Just in case you're planning on creating more today, I think a more appropriate title for "Nth century Roman people" would be "Nth century Romans". Likewise for Greeks, as "Roman people" and "Greek people" really are clunky. I'm going to request a category move at CfD later for this reason. Ford MF (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is more snappy; my trial category was simply following the "convention" that "national" people categories tend to contain the word "people". It's not a major issue, if you put it for category move, I'll accept it. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OMG HI!

Hi! OMG, Lets chat sometime about Wikipedia! --70.121.33.78 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Danny O'Neil

An article that you have been involved in editing, Danny O'Neil, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny O'Neil. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Movingboxes (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

MRTD article

Hi, I want to add to your article about minumum resolvable temperature difference. If you go to my userpage under sandbox-MRTD you should be able to find a preview of it. It's mostly done; I just need to reword a few sentences and add my one or two references. Let me know what you think. If not I will probably simply just add it anyway in the next week or so. Thank you The Lamb of God (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your additions look reasonable, go ahead; I prefer "input" instead of "inputed". Jaraalbe (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I added what I said I would. "Inputed" seems more grammatically correct to me? Feel free to change my wording however; or anything else The Lamb of God (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

History museum re-cats

Thanks for that! It's reminded me a of a lot of articles I'm watching for no good reason and purging my watch list :) You could probably ask a bot to help if it's too tedious. TravellingCari 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. I have now "completed" the re-cat to Category:History museums in the United States. Jaraalbe (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Great job! I'm also trying to clean-up Category:Historic house museums. We have the child cats Category:Historic house museums in the United States and Category:Historic house museums in Italy (odd much?) so I'm trying to move those in the parent to the right child cat and also create child cats as needed. Thanks for taking care of part of it :) TravellingCari 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

History of science by discipline cat

I see you created Category:History of science by discipline. I think this is a useful category, but I suggest that we change the name of it to "History of science by field". "Discipline" has a few specific meanings within the historiography of science, and is usually used to indicate the institutional framework of an area of study, rather than intellectual boundaries that we commonly use (biology, chemistry, etc.).--ragesoss (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am happy for it to be so changed. "Field" is more appropriate. Thank you for the gentle correction. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic disasters

Hi, I note you've been making changes to the categorisation of a number of articles, moving them to "continental" versions, e.g. to Category:Economic disasters in Europe from Category:Economic disasters. However, capital markets have been global for centuries and many of these disasters were linked - even in the C19th a UK crisis would flow to the US after a few months or a year or two, and vice versa. Nowadays a crisis leaps continents in hours, yet to look at the cats for Black Monday (1987) you would think it was solely a US effect. Do you think it wise to have this separation? Rgds, Ephebi (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You are of course correct in that capital markets between continents have been connected for centuries. However, some crises do not have a significant effect on the wider economy far from their point of origin. I think it wise to consider each case separately and classify/re-classify as necessary. Jaraalbe (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Shipwrecks as disasters?

Tasmanian shipwrecks as disasters I find interesting - if its one then the whole Australian maritime history project needs checking for that - I personally would be reluctant to use such a connection between a maritime incident and a 'disaster' - however you might have something to convince me - problem is you have the world wide phenomena of shipwrecks categories to consider - why just Tasmania? SatuSuro 06:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

All shipwrecks are categorized under disasters e.g. Category:Disasters_in_the_United_Kingdom|Category:Transport disasters in the United Kingdom|Category:Maritime incidents in the United Kingdom|Category:Shipwrecks of the United Kingdom|Category:Cornish shipwrecks, even down to sub-divisions of countries (e.g. Category:Disasters in England by locality|Category:Disasters in Kent|Category:Shipwrecks in the Downs or Category:Disasters in Massachusetts|Category:Shipwrecks_of_the_Massachusetts_coast and even Category:Transport disasters in Australia|Category:Maritime incidents in Australia|Category:Shipwrecks_on_the_Australian_coast. When shipwrecks occur close to a coast they can be associated with that coast. Tasmania is a distinct part of Australia with a distinct coast and so shipwrecks off it can be associated with Tasmania. In summary,I think that all Australian shipwrecks, and shipwrecks world-wide, should be reviewed. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe - but where is the precedent/first time tried that one and have there been alternatives? Surely there are shipwrecks in the global scheme of things which havent been drawn in to this particular format - it would be interesting to understand the overall process of where the disaster bit came in - citing where it is used is very useful and I appreciate the trouble you have gone to to point out usage - It is useful to have all that to hand if you want the global usage reviewed - good luck to you - I have become very jaded re category xfd and xfr issues in this old goldfishbowl as the overall process stinks at the moment - I will abstain if I see it come up anywhere - so thanks for taking the time to explain - as tassie items are on my watch i thought I'd bring it up - cheers - ( BTW - I have become very suspicious of global wikipedia wide category changes in some subject areas - due to the effect from some recent events - so that is why you can count me out on this topic - I do not believe there are phenomona that have consistently global application - the more I look at it differences across cultures and continents - I am genuinely dissappointed by the urge of some wikipedia editors desire to have global consistency in things in wikipedia that have none in reality) best of luck - cheers SatuSuro 14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:20th century in Christianity

Good job on these categories.

Since we have begun naming these "Christianity century categories in different formats I think you and I should agree to stop creating any more until we (and others) can agree on one standard format, such as...

• Category:19th century Christian history‎
• Category:19th century Christianity‎
• Category:19th century in Christianity ‎

Once we do that (agree to stop), I think the next step will be for us to post the issue to WP:CFD since that will be requiered to change any category names that exsist now. --Carlaude ^(talk) 22:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop creating categories for the moment. Would you like to state your preference? I prefer following the xxth century in religion style, but do not feel strongly about it. Jaraalbe (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer either Category:00th century Christianity‎ or Category:00th century Christian history.

I think it is best to propose Category:00th century Christianity‎ because (1) it has, I think, the best chance to pass and (2) we can then list all seven Categories we are looking at.--Carlaude ^(talk) 22:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I accept. Do you wish to list the categories? Jaraalbe (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_22#Category:Centuries_in_Christianity

Feel free to vote or comment there. --Carlaude ^(talk) 23:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to create more 00th century Christianity categories now. We are only getting agreement to Category:00th century Christianity proposal.--Carlaude ^(talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I love you. 71.153.183.129 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mis-named category for Russian America

Hi; just noticed your creation of Category:Russian colony of Alaska but must advise you the name is incorrect, for two reasons - one is that Alaska was not a colony but was formally part of the Russian Empire, I believe as some kind of province but I'm not sure if it was an oblast or what at this point; it was also not called Alaska by them, but referred to officially as Russian America. The category name should have been Russian America", just as teh title of the article you added it to should be Russian America rather than "Russian Alaska" ("Alaska when it was Russian"); I was going to change the article name but was looking for a cite to back me up, now because of your category creation the category has to go through the main Wikipedia discussion boards to get changed; unless you're an admin and can change it yourself? "Category:Oblast of Russian America" is a theoretical title, i.e. if it was an oblast, I'll find that out....Skookum1 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if this is not the best title, I used information within Russian Alaska to formulate the category title; the word colony is used sereval times. As an alternative title, how about "Russian North America", is that more clear? I have no objection to the main Wikipedia discussion board process. Thanks for your note. Jaraalbe (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; the Russian Alaska article has its problems...including its title...I'm doing some research, I think now it may have been a "guberniya" ("Governate") rather than an ablast; ocne taht's determined I'll run it by WP:CFD....Skookum1 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hey there, please take a look at my comments at WP:CFDS regarding Category:Russian colony of Alaska. Best, Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to add that I've had corroboration for Category:Russian America as "the perfect title" from a Russian history contributor on Talk:Oblast#What was Russian America?.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi; please see the yellow, deleted section at left; turns out the easiest way to do this, rather than a full-fledged CFD, is for you, as the recent creator of the category, to simply ask for it to be deleted as explained in the linked material; then simply create Category:Russian America. So far we're the only two involved so a CFD is counterproductive and a waste of time....Skookum1 (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Happy New Year...I see you're around today by your user contributions...could you please do the deletion of Category:Russian colony of Alaska and create/transpose Category:Russian America in its place; I just created Category:Governors of Russian America. As noted, it's easiest for you as the category-creator to simply do the deletion (place a "delete" template is all that's needed); I've saved a list of the current category's contents so can use it as a reference point for adding the new category to all of them, as I realize you may not have the time/energy. It's just easier this way, since we're the only two involved (at this point). I could just created Category:Russian America and do all of that but it's redudant at this point, until the one you created is deleted...other subcats are going to be created, but I didn't want to make too many until their parent cat is renamed/deleted. Thanks mucho.Skookum1 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you. Thanks for the reminder. I will get around to it soon, probably tomorrow. Jaraalbe (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

'K, thanks. Note my creation of Category:Governors of Russian America today; I'm also going to create List of Russian ships in the Pacific Northwest and California, similar to List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest and List of ships in British Columbia; might throw the title around a bit, including California because of Ft Ross and the visits of Russian ships to California as a show of anti-British support during the Civil War; ostsensible cut-off date is 1867; if I'd titles List of ships in British Columbia differently I could just integrate teh Russian ships there....sorry, just thinking out loud, but mostly bringing this up to indicate the variety of potential subcats of Category:Russian America....marine expeditions and vessels being only one sub-category, Category:Russian Orthodox missionaries in North America would be another.....Category:Russian American Company employees etc....Skookum1 (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:232 BC deaths

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:232 BC deaths, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:232 BC deaths has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:232 BC deaths, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Old soldiers' home

Another user created Category:Old soldiers' home to categorize Sawtelle Veterans Home, a fine new article on a historic U.S. facility. I put it as a subcategory to Category: United States Department of Veterans Affairs, but there may be a better category. It's also in category:1888 establishments and I almost sharpened that to Category:Military units and formations established in 1888, but that didn't quite seem to fit. Any suggestions on this category and article? Pardon if this isn't of interest - but you created one of those categories and you seem to work in the field. (Thanks for that, BTW). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A problem with Category:Old soldiers' home as a sub-category of Category: United States Department of Veterans Affairs is that it is not international. Royal Hospital Chelsea in London, UK is an "Old soldier's home". Other countries will also have similar institutions. With the current level of population of Category:Old soldiers' home it might seem inapproproate to create Category:United States veterans retirement homes as a sub-cat to Category:Old soldiers' home. However eventually such a category is required. If we can find sufficient articles to place in such a category then we can justify its' creation. A starting place (for the US) might be Old soldiers' home. Jaraalbe (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision/proofreading of Domenico Morosini translation (it --> en)

Hello!
I've completed the revision and proofreading of the above-mentioned article, for which you had made a contribution. Please review the article, and let me know through its discussion page if there's anything else I can do. Thank you!
--Campelli (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. It is now one of the better articles on Doges of Venice. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Brook

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Richard Brook, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non notable biography

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stormbay (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Redundant date categories

Hi, Jaraalbe. You are inserting a lot of redundant date categories into bios. See my edit summary where I've reverted Thomas Betterton. This is an important category principle, so could you please stop and self-revert the rest? Regards, Bishonen | talk 09:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Worcestershire

Hi! A WikiProject Worcestershire has now been created to better manage all articles that relate in any way to the county even if they overlap with other categories or projects. Please visit the project pages and if you see listed any articles you have written or contributed to, or if you would like to see more active development of them, don't hesitate to join the project.

Great Malvern Railway Station

Hi Jaraalbe! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Great Malvern railway station

Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Please take a look at the categories. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

Thanks for the attention! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

Irish categories

Hi Jaraalbe,

I AM sorry to mess this up. I'll refrain from too much of this. All I was trying to do was include as many articles in as many categories as seemed reasonable. Thanks, Fergananim (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Jaraalbe, I've noticed you are randomly removing people of Munster origins from the category Medieval Irish people. Many of them I just added because I found it filled up only with Connachta and Uí Néill. The Eóganachta and others belong to. Please fix the way your program is working or I will remove everyone from the category. DinDraithou (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithou, please see my reply to Fergananim on this issue (User talk:Ferganim#Categories and catgeory diffusion). Basically the move that I have performed is to a valid sub-category. Regards, Jaraalbe (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please reply to me, thank you. As I said, if the Munster Irish keep disappearing, I will remove everyone from the category. DinDraithou (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're up to now, and have reverted all my reverts, I think. Nice work. DinDraithou (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Jaraalbe (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to National Land Company

If you read the article you'll see that the company was never legally established. For that reason I'd avoided the "Companies established/disestablished in..." categories. I prefer your more non-committal "1851 disestablishments". I'll leave it to you to consider the distinction and review your edits accordingly. Regards, Bazj (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I'll reconsider. Jaraalbe (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Malvern College

Hi Jaraalbe! Malvern College, an article you have edited or contributed to, concerns an important school. It still needs some urgent attention. If you can help, please see Talk:Malvern College#Lead Section regarding how it may be improved. (This is a generic message, if it has been placed on your talk page inadvertantly, please ignore it.)'--Kudpung (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh International School, English Section, Riyadh

Hi, can you please put the citations in the article Bangladesh International School, English Section, Riyadh properly. I ve provided some references but I dont know how to do the cite thing properly. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceleo (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Krishna Pal

The article Krishna Pal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reference does not meet Wp :Bio

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. Linguisticgeek (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you removing Categories related to Iran?

Why are you removing Categories related to Iran from relevant articles? I think your actions, especially without consulting editors before, are very irritating. Revert all of them please.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your comment. I have been trying to do some sorting of some Iran-related articles. The level of categorizing appears to be sparse compared to some other countries (for example compare the number of articles within states of India, such as Tamil Nadu with articles within most provinces within Iran)). I am attempting to play a small part in improving the category consistency between countries. I believe that in all cases I have inserted a more appropriate set of categories for each article considered. Mostly this involves moving articles to sub-categories which are children of at least two parents. It is a general practise in wikipedia that articles are not also placed in parent categories. For example, havng created a category for "Category:Visitor attractions in Tabriz" which is a child of "Category:Tabriz" and "Category:Visitor attractions in Iran by city", it is no longer appropriate to have articles on attractions in Tabriz directly within "Category:Visitor attractions in Iran by city"; they should now occur within "Category:Visitor attractions in Tabriz". If the article falls within another sub-category it can be plaved within that as well, so "Visitor attractions in Tabriz" which are also buildings should also occur under "Category:Buildings and structures in Tabriz". If you think that a particular group of edits on an article is incorrect then please point it out, with your reasoning, and I will, if necessary revert. I acknowledge that I occasionally make mistakes, and I will be grateful if you do point them out to me. I have a genuine interest in many subjects in wikipedia: the history of Iran is one of those interests. Jaraalbe (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello I tried to follow this algebra. What I can say is that it is correct to have category Iran under all pages related to Iran. As it is often a poliically loaded decision, deleting them can make many people regard you as politicaly biased.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is correct to put all pages ralted to Iran in the Category:Iran itself, then why does category:Iran contain the banner message: "Due to the scope of this category, it should only contain subcategories and possibly a limited number of directly related pages."? (As do the main category pages for almost every country). Therefore few articles should be directly in Category:Iran. When I deleted the category: Iran from any page it was to sub-categorise - fulfilling the banner injunction. This is not a political issue, but one of wikipedia logic. Again, I say if you have a particular issue with a particular article, please bring it to my attention. Regards. Jaraalbe (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

please let category Iran stand under the Iranian cities pages. You can also put them under the category Iranian cities--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that under strict adhence to Wikipedia categorizing principles, all pages for Iranian cities should come under Category:Cities, towns and villages in Iran or even sub-categories of Category:Cities, towns and villages in Iran. However, personally I have no problem with a small number of pages on major cities of Iran being also being listed in Category:Iran if fellow wikipedians so desire. The articles so left should not be of very poor quality, and definately no stubs. Another proviso is that the total number of articles in Category:Iran should not be so high as to cause "clutter" that obscures easy navigation. If I remove an article from Category:Iran in future I will give a more detailed argument on the general categorization of that article, including why it should be removed from Category:Iran. Jaraalbe (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

?

You are Dr. Siavash Lotfi. Aren't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.71.1 (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not, please look at my user page. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

news

CfD nomination of Category:Archbishops of Birmingham, England

I have nominated Category:Archbishops of Birmingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Archbisops of Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Cemeteries in Birmingham, England

I have nominated Category:Cemeteries in Birmingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Cemeteries in Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Health in Birmingham, England

I have nominated Category:Health in Birmingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Health in Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Hospitals in Birmingham, England

I have nominated Category:Hospitals in Birmingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Hospitals in Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Museums in Birmingham, England

I have nominated Category:Museums in Birmingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Museums in Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Places of worship in Birmingham, England

I have nominated Category:Places of worship in Birmingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Places of worship in Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Rail transport in Birmingham, England

I have nominated Category:Rail transport in Birmingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Rail transport in Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Birmingham, England (historic)

I have nominated Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Birmingham, England (historic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Birmingham (historic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball players

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Cyclists killed while racing

Category:Cyclists killed while racing, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Severo^TC 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Satelite image of Malta.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Satelite image of Malta.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Worcester

Hi Jaraalbe! an article you have contributed to, has been selected for the Wikipedia Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minutes changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 1#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release.--Kudpung (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Sieges involving Rome

Category:Sieges involving Rome, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. TheGrappler (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People from Penrith

Category:People from Penrith, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chandragupt Institute of Management

The article Chandragupt Institute of Management has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

St. David

St. David School (Richmond, California) an article that you have participated in editing has been nominated for deletion a second time, the first time in 2006 resulted in no consensus and, it can be reviewed here. The current discussion on the removal of the article is located here should you wish leave your comment.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:German culture by city

Category:German culture by city, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ChemTerm (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:People in the history of Germany

Category:People in the history of Germany, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jiangsu culture

Category:Jiangsu culture, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Makecat 07:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops by period

Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops by period, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JFH (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey

I am Piotr Konieczny, a fellow Wikipedian (User:Piotrus) and a researcher of Wikipedia (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ). I am currently (in collaboration with WMF) embarking on a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. We have a growing understanding of why an average editor may do so (see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), but we have a very limited understanding of why the top editors would limit their contributions. Yet it is the top editors like yourself who contribute most of Wikiepdia's content, thus understanding this is of vital concern to Wikipedia's project future.

I am contacting you because you are among the top Wikipediana by number of edits, yet your editing activity shows a decline. I would very much appreciate if you would take a minute and answer the following four short questions. Please note this is not a mass email; I am contacting only few dozen of editors like yourself, and each response is extremely valuable. Your response will not be made public, and your privacy will be fully respected.

If you would like to help out in this project and take part in a very short survey, please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if you had time to consider my request? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedians

Jaraalbe, I just wanted to let you know that I added your account name on to the list at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Feel free to remove your name if you return or do not want it listed. You're missed! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of PSivida

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

unsourced company, may be spam

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for History (journal)

An article that you have been involved in editing—History (journal) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Parks and gardens in Beijing has been nominated for discussion

Category:Parks and gardens in Beijing, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic organizations by century of establishment has been nominated for discussion

Category:Roman Catholic organizations by century of establishment, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the Dutch East India Company has been nominated for discussion

Category:People associated with the Dutch East India Company, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Ophthalmology organizations has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ophthalmology organizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speedily rename a category

• Category:Liverpool murder cases to Category:People murdered in Liverpool Hugo999 (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:232 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:232 BC deaths requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Impact ionization schematic.gif

The file File:Impact ionization schematic.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:London newspapers has been nominated for merging

Category:London newspapers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from plague (disease) has been nominated for renaming

Category:Deaths from plague (disease) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Archbishops of Chicago has been nominated for renaming

Category:Archbishops of Chicago has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:History of religion by period has been nominated for merging

Category:History of religion by period has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Argentine Roman Catholic archbishops has been nominated for renaming

Category:Argentine Roman Catholic archbishops has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:People from Brittany has been nominated for merging

Category:People from Brittany has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1577 disestablishments

A tag has been placed on Category:1577 disestablishments indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:9th-century rulers in Asia has been nominated for merging

Category:9th-century rulers in Asia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1760 disasters

A tag has been placed on Category:1760 disasters indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1779 disasters

A tag has been placed on Category:1779 disasters indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1781 disasters

A tag has been placed on Category:1781 disasters indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1820 disasters

A tag has been placed on Category:1820 disasters indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Women of the Crusader states has been nominated for renaming

Category:Women of the Crusader states has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Greeks killed in battle has been nominated for renaming

Category:Ancient Greeks killed in battle has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Artillery regiments of Italy

A tag has been placed on Category:Artillery regiments of Italy indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Ancient history of Fooland

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Ancient history of Fooland on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 11:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:British people of the Barbary Wars has been nominated for merging

Category:British people of the Barbary Wars has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)