User talk:Mannerheimo/Archive 7

Paragraph breaks and citations

I saw you edit to Vicente Uribe where you added some paragraph breaks. I have no problem with the change, which makes the paragraphs more coherent, if rather short. But the effect was to leave sentences at the end of three paragraphs without citations. Thus what was:

Carrillo began maneuvering for greater power. After Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin, Ibárruri abandoned Uribe and began to support Carrillo.{{sfn|Foweraker|2003|p=143}}

Became

Carrillo began maneuvering for greater power.

After Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin, Ibárruri abandoned Uribe and began to support Carrillo.{{sfn|Foweraker|2003|p=143}}

This makes it look as though the statement "Carrillo began maneuvering for greater power." is unsupported, when in fact it is supported by {{sfn|Foweraker|2003|p=143}}, which covers both sentences ("Carillo then began to extend his bases of support ... Ibarruri rapidly shifted her support from Uribe to Carrillo..."). Before adding a paragraph break like this, it is probably best to check the cited source to see if it covers the sentence before the break, and if so copy the citation:

Carrillo began maneuvering for greater power.{{sfn|Foweraker|2003|p=143}}

After Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin, Ibárruri abandoned Uribe and began to support Carrillo.{{sfn|Foweraker|2003|p=143}}

If you cannot see the cited source, it is probably best not to add the paragraph break, because you cannot be sure the citation covers the sentence before the proposed break. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rafael Font Farran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barcelona Province. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Finland's presidential candidates by politicial party

Hello Mannerheimo. I saw you created List of Finland's presidential candidates by politicial party after you created List of candidates in Finnish presidential elections. I think the first list (by party) is actually redundant as the other list also includes the party, and can be sorted by party. Would you be happy to merge the party list into the other one? Cheers, Number 57 21:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I think the idea to united this two is good but the problem is that the Finnish Wikipedia has already two articles. If we unite this two to one it will be to long article in my view of the point. I think two single articles are ok--Mannerheimo (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

But the party one doesn't contain anything that the general list doesn't – it's redundant. Number 57 23:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Some candidates are by partisan canditates for many parties in same elections. Like in 1978 when all the major parties where behind one candidate. But in 1982 elections it was diffrent situation when all the major parties had own separate canditate. That's why there is two diffrent lists. --Mannerheimo (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jan-Magnus Jansson

added a link pointing to Neutrality

The Lost Prince

added a link pointing to Daniel Williams

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AceSevenFive (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Wikipedia? Are you kidding me? Free encyclopedia has an control for editing which has very academical word called Disruptive editing. Well 15 years of free editing is just an slogan. --Mannerheimo (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Could you explain why you are making these edits? Else "bold, revert, discuss" applies here. — foxj 22:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I will stop doing that to here. Harmonizing categories is not very bad idea but I think it is not very supporteble idea currently. Well the myth of 15 years of free editing is still an big Cliché in the World which celebrates Wikipedia. --Mannerheimo (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"...emigrants to..." Category blanking

Presumably you are blanking the numerous "FOOish emigrants to England", "FOOish emigrants to Scotland" and "FOOish emigrants to Wales" categories for a good reason, rather than to be disruptive? I can probably see merit in an argument that these people are over-categorised. Is that the reason? Sionk (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The correct way to delete, or up-merge a category is to raise a discussion at Categories for Discussion. You can raise numerous categories in the same discussion. If you need help with this, I can give you advice.

However, you are not the only editor on Wikipedia. True, it is not a democracy, but it does work with discussion and consensus. I think blanking pages and emptying categories is the wrong way to go about things. Sionk (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are very right that Wikipedia is not democracy it is the worst Bureaucracy which I have ever experienced which is not Governmental leval. --Mannerheimo (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

True, it can be bureaucratic :) Anyway, I agree with you that most of those categories were unnecessary. As we say in English "There's more than one way to skin a cat". Sionk (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am very pleased about your opennes in Wikipedia about the unnecessary categories.But how do we can make Bureaucracy easy? We all know the solution. We can remove the categories to the main categories and delete the unnecessary categories. But that is just what I did yesterday. But it was provented and reversed to the old status. Just talking about the issue which we all acknowledge is stupid and time concuming Bureaucric pedantry which dosen't let to any solutions or discussions. We all know the solution. Just let me continue the same harmonizing which I started yesterday so we can make Wikipedia less bureaucratic. That is only what I ask. --Mannerheimo (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to explain exactly why you have reverted all this categorisation that I have been working on. No explanation. No reason. I would appreciate an explanation. If you had asked me why I'd done it I would have explained to you. But apparently you don't have the common decency to do so. But as you didn't bother to ask, I shall explain anyway. Previously many articles had both, for instance: Category:Pakistani emigrants to the United Kingdom and Category:English people of Pakistani descent. These people are not English people of Pakistani descent. They are Pakistani emigrants to England. Better to have a single accurate category than two categories, one of which is inaccurate. There. An explanation. And all you had to do is have the courtesy to ask! When an experienced editor such as myself does something it is usually for a good reason! So, all that work ruined for no good reason other than a lack of understanding on your part. Thanks very much! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I gave an reason on this talk page. Harmonizing the categories. Even User: Sionk said that most of those categories were unnecessary in the begining. Better to united them to one category specially when the country is same UK. England, Wales and Scotland and N-Ireland is only one region of the UK. Do we have an category here in Wikipedia called Category:British emigrant to California ? No?! We have category called British emigrants to the United States. Better to have one harmonized category than several diffrent categories to same country. Other wise it is very difficult to find articls in several small categories which normaly have 3 to 5 persons. Not an very practical idea if there is alternative. I think still we should harmonize Wikipedia in the category area to unite some small minor categories like these emigrants to England, emigrants to Wales, emigrants to Scotland and emigrants to Northern Ireland to on big category called emigrants to the United Kingdom. We don't have even category of emigrants to all 50 U.S states. I think we just should go on and clean the unnecessary categories to under big category. That was the think which I had started expect It was stoped from other users how don't have really issue than only complain,complain and complain.--Mannerheimo (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So cutting two cats to one is not "harmonizing categories"? I don't think you actually know what you're talking about yourself. Incidentally, California is not a country. England is. Are you actually aware of this? We don't have a category entitled Californian people of German descent. We do have a category entitled Category:English people of German descent. Please, if you don't know what you're talking about then leave well alone, as all you do is disrupt Wikipedia. You have already been warned about this. Given English is clearly quite difficult for you and you obviously don't understand the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom, may I suggest you stick to editing Wikipedia in your own language? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't men those categories of descent I ment emigrants. Two diffrent categories. If you can just read carefully what I said you would have understand me more clearly. I ment that these categories Category:Immigrants to England‎, Category: Immigrants to Great Britain‎, Category: Immigrants to Northern Ireland, Category: Immigrants to Scotland‎, Category: Immigrants to Wales‎ should be united to Category:Immigrants to the United Kingdom and all the regional areas of UK should be under one. Is these know clear? Of course historicial countries should have their separate categories like Kingdom of England. I don't write very good English but Wikipedia rules don't prevent me to editing the Wikipedia even that English is not my mother language. I speak better English than I can write it but that is not the issue. --Mannerheimo (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that you don't understand that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not just regions or states but countries. That's why we have (and long have had) categories like Category:English people of German descent but not Category:Californian people of German descent or Category:Bavarian people of English descent. Because England is a country but California and Bavaria are not (although the latter was once, of course). If a Pakistani immigrant settles in England as a child they have in the past been categorised both as Category:Pakistani emigrants to the United Kingdom and (rather inaccurately) Category:English people of Pakistani descent. I have attempted to rationalise this by reducing the categorisation to one category: Category:Pakistani emigrants to England. Now do you understand? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well England, Scotland, Wales and N-Ireland are acually regions. Not independent countries. The United Kingdom is independent country. What was then the issue having an Scottish independence referendum if Scotland is an country all ready. California is an state which has more politicial power than Scotland. Then we should reconize that U.S States are sperate entities. Well then all the emigrants to Greenland should be separated from Mainland Denmark or emigrants to Åland Islands should be separated with Mainland Finland. Åland has larger autonomous than England or Wales. But we don't have an category here Category:Emigrants to Åland or Category:People of Åland descent. So I don't buy your argument. But still if I think harmonizing the regions of the UK will be more easy than current situation. When we should take other autonomous areas like Greenland or Åland separate with the mainland or motherland. --Mannerheimo (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No, once again you are misunderstanding. They are not sovereign states; they are countries. Just accept this as a fact and stop trying to argue on a subject you obviously aren't familiar with. Or maybe take a look at the first line of Scotland! What does it say Scotland is? Just accept you're wrong and give it up, for crying out loud! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok you are right. But one can say that Åland Islands is country but not sovereign states so then we should have an separate category for Åland also. I think we should then have more categories to countries like Category:Swedish emigrants to Åland. Because even as an Finnish citizen I can not move to Åland like moving from London to Liverpool because there is special residence permitt to emigrate to Åland even for Finnish citizens. Åland people even have diffrent passports than mainland Finns. More information here [1]. Because there is also an separate category already for Greenland so why not also to Åland? --Mannerheimo (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there should be separate categories, since Åland and Greenland are indeed more than just regions. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Just because nobody has yet created categories doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Good that you finaly understand the point. --Mannerheimo (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Did I ever say I didn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You (i.e. User:Mannerheimo) need to appreciate the politics of the United Kingdom before you try and rationalise categories like these (for the wrong reasons). England, Scotland and Wales are countries. However, I would agree that many of the categories created by Necrothesp were a classic example of over-categorisation, hence unnecessary. If a category only has one or two articles in it, it hinders navigation.
But the politics of the UK means that, if someone puts 90% of the UK articles in a "England" category, Scotland and Wales editors will want to be more than "not England" and create their own categories too. In my view it's best to leave articles in "UK" categories, unless the category is quite big. Sionk (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have explained why I created these categories; to avoid double and inaccurate categorisation. When Wikipedia uses a categorisation scheme it generally categorises fully and not partially. The size of the category in a comprehensive categorisation scheme is irrelevant. And we have a long history of subdividing the British categories into the constituent nations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right very much indeed. But Wikipedia is politicial non-partisan or acually the word neutral is better word for this. So why should Wikipedia have divisions between the regions in UK politics?Then we should also have categories on U.S or Canadian politics maybe even Australian and New Zealand politicial divisions because this is English-language Wikipedia and these countries are English speaking countries.--Mannerheimo (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, because they are not regions; they are countries! Someone from Australia usually says "I am an Australian"; someone from Scotland usually says "I am a Scot", not "I am a Briton" (although that is their formal and official nationality). Politics has nothing to do with it; it's national identity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite being from Wales, I have more sympathy with Mannerheimo. At the end of the day, people do emigrate to sovereign states. This discussion would have been far more useful at Categories for discussion. Sionk (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

People emigrate from sovereign states too; however, note that we have long had Category:English emigrants, Category:Scottish emigrants, Category:Welsh emigrants and Category:Emigrants from Northern Ireland. May I take it you wish to do away with all these too? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right because only sovereign states can have their own immigration policy. But as this has became an England vs Wales as an Finnish citizen I don't really want to take anymore this issue from this talk page. I will support you in any way if you will take this issue to Categories for discussion. --Mannerheimo (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

More category issues

I see you have just created Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to Mandatory Palestine and moved several articles into it. However, such a category cannot exist, as Imperial Russia ceased to exist in 1917, and Mandatory Palestine only came into existence in 1920. Please be more careful with you categorisation, and check whether you have made similar date errors in any of your other recategorisations. Thanks, Number 57 11:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This, for instance, is clearly wrong, as he emigrated in 1922, five years after the country became Russia. Please review all your edits, or someone may end up doing a mass rollback on them. Number 57 11:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well he is categorized as White Russian emigrant so I think he is an also from the Imperial Russian period. White Russian emigrants where anti-communists. --Mannerheimo (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Nelly Sachs Prize page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

List redirects

I have redirected United States presidential visits to Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay and United States presidential visits to Brazil to United States presidential visits to South America, as you suggested. I have also redirected United States presidential visits to Latin America there too, as most Latin American nations are South American nations as well. This was also a simpler change than your suggestion to merge the United States presidential visits to Mexico list into the United States presidential visits to Latin America article. If that were done, then the United States presidential visits to the Caribbean, United States presidential visits to Central America and United States presidential visits to South America would all need to be redirected there as well. In my opinion, there are enough entries in each of those lists to warrant separate articles. Hope this all make sense. Drdpw (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Papal travel articles

Your edits to List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy have been chopping up the formatting of the tables on the article. Also, why are you replacing the numbers with "Type". It is redundant to list the countries twice for each voyage. The heading "Apostolic Journey" being listed over and over again does not contribute any added value to the tables either. One of your "Types" was "Voyage of Poland". That is ungrammatical nonsense. The nation of Poland did not make a voyage.

Also, in regards to your edits to List of pastoral visits of Pope Paul VI outside Italy. In addition to adding a redundant column for "Type", you changed the wikilink for Nazareth, the city in Israel to Nasareth which is a hamlet in Wales.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your deleting my editing. But I only added cities which Pope visited. I agree with those other errors. I am allowed to add the these on these articles which are mentioned in the Vatican web page. --Mannerheimo (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

head of state

Hi
my dear wikipedian friend,vice president is not head of state,for example vice president Joe Biden is not head of state of USA but president Obama is!or one of Vatican's cardinals is not Pope!first ladies and princes are not heads of states too,plz read Head of state and Head of government. tnx for your edits. Shahin (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes but t the article also mentions other government officials . I think Vice-President is other government official category as also the Speaker of the Parliament.But then PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat or UN Secetary General are not government officials because PLO is not an country and UN is not an state it is an international organization. Also some royalty are members of the ruling family and they have official title like Crown Prince. --Mannerheimo (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

about Arafat,Iranian government recognized Palestine as country so we put him in the list specifically,but about government officials section i will remove that section because we don't have any references how many government officials travel to Iran since 100 years ago.Shahin (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

im glad you help us in this article and plz continue to edit but plz put just presidents, prime ministers and kings or queens,High Representative in EU and Secretary-General in UN!Shahin (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Just I want to remember you that some princes are head of states like Monaco and Liechtenstein. --Mannerheimo (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Monaco and Liechtenstein have prince instead of king or they called their kings prince!!!!Shahin (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions - Table Formatting

I don't think that combining rows is very useful. And I think it makes it more difficult to read the table. Auguel (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

http://maximietteita.blogspot.ca/2016/01/porkkala-occupy-and-released-area.html

I haven't copied this article from any web side. I copied it from another Wikipedia article Porkkala to another Wikipedia article Porkkala Naval Base. I have ever even seen this blog page which you mentioned. Rules are very clear to me. I copied this article from another Wikipedia article which is accepted in Wikipedia.--Mannerheimo (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

June 16, 2016

Greetings. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your recent renaming and redirecting of United States presidential visits to Belgium and United States presidential visits to the United Kingdom. It is not good form or proper etiquette to make such radical changes without first establishing a consensus for them. Please leave both in their current form unless a consensus to rename is established beforehand. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I was planning to make an article called the United States presidential visits to Netherlands and United States presidential visits to Republic of Ireland but then I thought that making two separate articles is not that good because the information will be same. Now uniting these information to one will be better. Ireland information and Netherlands information. Now Wikipedia is free encyclopedia. Even my articles have been put in to one because they had same information. Now These makes it easy to find information. Noting radical about that. In Wikipedia there should be an common rule don't edit other users articles with out consensus but I think these will be even bigger change to the Philosophy of Wikipedia.--Mannerheimo (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Your multiple edits, reverting of edits & page blanking to United States presidential visits to Belgium fits the definition of edit-warring, as do the changes you keep making to Template:U.S. Presidential Trips. Please stop this behavior. Drdpw (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal: As no U.S. President has visited Luxembourg, I propose renaming the "visits to Belgium" article ...visits to Belgium and the Netherlands, plus redirecting your new "visits to Benelux Countries" (I didn't know that that term was used anymore) would redirect there. Let me know what you think. Drdpw (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Benelux is common name for the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Even in Europe we still use the name Benelux countries in many issues. Here is one very intressting institution which uses the name Benelux The Finnish Cultural Institute for the Benelux or the Benelux Cooperation webside (In French and Dutch). So the Name Benelux is still used. If some day U.S President will visit Luxembourg the article name will be to long. Benelux is the cultural and politicial term used for Holland, Luxembourg and Belgium but also an customs union founded in 1944 before European Union or EFTA. Oldest politicial union still functional in Europe. --Mannerheimo (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For the reasons I've stated about I do not concur with your unilateral changes. As we are in conflict, please leave the "visits to Belgium" page in place for now (a day or two) and let's disengage from our conflict. I'll rethink my objections then. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have redirected the "visits to Belgium" article to the new "visits to Benelux countries". In the future, please do not unilaterally redirect pages without first discussing the proposed move. There's a fine line between being bold and being brash. Drdpw (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (United States presidential visits to East Asia) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating United States presidential visits to East Asia, Mannerheimo!

Wikipedia editor Pianoman320 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great job on this article. It just needs some more citations, as there's a lot of facts given out with nothing to back them up. Otherwise it looks great.

To reply, leave a comment on Pianoman320's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Ways to improve United States presidential visits to East Asia

Hi, I'm Pianoman320. Mannerheimo, thanks for creating United States presidential visits to East Asia!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I think this needs citations for the North Korea statement in the intro and the full list of presidential visits. I'll try to find some within the next week if you don't get to it before then.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Pianoman320 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks great now, thanks for adding those! Pianoman320 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have edded new citations for the United States presidential visits to East Asia. I just wanted to ask should these articles United States presidential visits to Japan and United States presidential visits to South Korea be merged with the United States presidential visits to East Asia because the same information is at both articles.--Mannerheimo (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of merging those since they don't add any new information on top of United States presidential visits to East Asia. If you use Twinkle just add a merge tag to those two articles. Pianoman320 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you do it for me. I don't know how to use Twinkle--Mannerheimo (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Mannerheimo, it is the new East Asia page what should not have been created, as there are already separate pages and ready for me and others to improve upon that cover all East Asia visits except the one to Mongolia (Ford's visit to Vladivostok is also already covered.. It would have been easier and less controversial had you changed the China visits list to "China and Mongolia". I would suggest that change as an alternative to merging the South Korea, China and Japan lists into the new East Asia list. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think one can have an separte China trips which deals with more to subject U.S- China Relationships. But East Asia includes Mongolia, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Ford's visit to Vladivostok was not to East Asia but it was to the Russian Far East. There is own article about that United States presidential visits to the Soviet Union and Russia. Acually it shoud be just renamed Russia, because Soviet Union has been dissolved to many other countries including the Baltic states.Russian Federation was just one Soviet Republic like Kazakhstan. East Asia is an region like South Asia. Should the United States presidential visits to South Asia article be renamed to United States presidential visits to the Indian subcontinent?.--Mannerheimo (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Is a separate article needed for each country? There's not that many visits, and many of the other presidential visit articles cover several countries or a region, e.g. North Africa, South Asia. I don't really have a preference, we should just do whatever is most consistent and easiest to navigate for readers. Pianoman320 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. Having to many seprate articles for each country is just to much. Maybe the European articles like France, Benelux, Germany, Austria and Switzerland, Portugal and Spain, Italy and Vatican State should be put into seprate regions like United States presidential visits to Western Europe , United States presidential visits to Southern Europe and United States presidential visits to Central Europe. These will make more easy for navigation.--Mannerheimo (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Polish people of Ashanti descent

Hello, Category:Polish people of Ashanti descent you created I guess was based on unknown vandalism by one user currently blocked indefinitely. Best. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 10:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Religion in Liberia page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Pie charts and bar boxes

You have been inserting pie charts and bar boxes into various articles, showing information taken from the CIA World Factbook on ethnic, linguistic and religious breakdown of the populations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and (I think) others. Thanks for that, but there are errors in what you have done. I have corrected some of them in Demographics of India (soon), Demographics of Pakistan and Demographics of Bangladesh. It would be helpful of you would check and correct the others, and take more care in the future. AWhiteC (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Yes there is always errors when one edits so many articles. I try to check the editing before saving but it dosen't always work so. Always some errors are there. Acually lot of errors are already there before my editing. --Mannerheimo (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

AN/I notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Category:LGBT American people of Cambodian descent has been nominated for discussion

Category:LGBT American people of Cambodian descent, 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. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleting accidental categories

If you mess up in the creation of a category, it is better to add the {{db-self}} tag to make sure it gets deleted, rather than simply blanking the page. Cheers.Le Deluge (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I will do that in the future. I think that empty catgories without sub category should be deleted automaticaly be those Users who has the right to do so. --Mannerheimo (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with any kind of automatic process is that it is too easy for idiots to abuse it so all deletion of categories happens manually by administrators. If you tag it with {{db-self}} then it goes straight to an administrator for deletion very quickly, whereas all the other ways of deleting a category take much longer and need at least one more person to be involved.Le Deluge (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

plz help us

please help us to improve List of international trips made by the President of Iran. Shahin (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that do you want to me to help with?The article looks to be getting on progress. You have to just add the trip lists of presidents Rafsanjani and Khamenei. Two presidents are missing from the list, Banisadr and Mohammad-Ali Rajai. You should me take article like your artcle of List of state visits to Iran. I would help you there but you must add the trips made by Rafsanjani and Khamenei. --Mannerheimo (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please hold

I think your reclassification of pre-modern Islamic figures according to names of modern states is highly problematic. I will bring up this topic on WikiProject Islam. Please hold off on further category changes until you get a consensus there. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all what do you mean with pre-modern Islamic?. I am not categoring people by modern states only but also by ethnic nationality like Kurdish and Afghan etc. I will continue reclassification as post modern islamic figues. Lot of my reclassification was accualy also changing the post-modern Islamic to pre-modern Islamic countries like Bangladesh or Pakistan because these countries are became countries in 1947 and 1971.India is older because of the British Raj. Pre-partition of the subcontinent. --Mannerheimo (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please post your comment to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Mass_category_changes_based_on_modern_states so others can take part in the discussion. Eperoton (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I have commented there already. --Mannerheimo (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Page assessment request

Hi, I noticed you recently added additional categories to Ideas of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, if you have time, please consider assessing the page as well as it has been unassessed for quite some time, despite my requests on the project pages. Thanks. cӨde1+6^TP 18:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done--Mannerheimo (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think your changes might not have saved. I still see the "An unassessed article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" header at the top of the page, and the talk page templates do not have a grade yet. If you could please assess that would be highly appreciated. Thanks again. cӨde1+6^TP 20:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really understand very clear what did you mean with the word "unassessed" but I have now returned the article to the original edit before my edits. --Mannerheimo (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I meant assigning a grade to the page, for assessment purposes. Sorry for the confusion. If you want to assign a grade as an experienced editor, please do. Thanks cӨde1+6^TP 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Category creation

Hi. By my count, there are several dozen categories that you have very recently created that have been nominated for deletion in the past 24 hours. As I look at the categories you are rapidly creating, I feel that many of them are inappropriate and are likely to be deleted when discussed. I think that because of this, it might be a good idea for you to acquaint yourself a little bit better with the category system and the types of categories that are appropriate. Just a suggestion—otherwise, a bunch of your work is going to waste since the categories you create are just going to get deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes but one can ask why should they be deleted.Those Users how are campagnin to delete those categories may not not have any good reason why they should be deleted but they are just those users who believes that deleting is the only solution in Wikipedia nothing else. This is very sad policy but what one can do? Wikipedia is an free encyclopedia where very one has right to edid, create articles and categories but if small elite continues to delete them why should any one should be an users if his or her's work will be deleted. That is an question which the deletors should ask from them self. Thanks a lot of destroying the editing of Users who puts their time and mind on Wikipedia. --Mannerheimo (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I can assure you that if I or another user nominates a category for deletion, it is not with intent of "destroying the editing" of other users. It is always done with a view towards improving the encyclopedia, and such users do not solely focus on deletion of content. I just wanted to give you a heads up that maybe some of the work you are doing is counterproductive in the long run. Sometimes when a user's category creations have consistently and in high numbers been found by consensus to be inappropriate, the user has been restricted from creating any more categories. And I didn't want that to be the result. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I like this word called "consensus " in Wikipedia because consensus is put to every issue in Wikipedia even that the idea of the consensus is to make common policy of Wikipedia on larger understanding withing the Users. If some User like Mannerheimo creates new categories I don't see that it should be consensus issue if there is missing some important categories or it is an technically subcategory which these my categories which you Good Ol'factory have deleted with the support of small group of users. That is not full All-Wikipedia User consensus that is an backroom policy where consensus is only the token. Consensus is an very good policy to solve disputes and having common understanding in large issue in Wikipedia but category deletion is not an consensus it is club where good boy network makes , decisions. Now I will not continue to make anymore categories like I have done because there will be always Users like Good Ol’factory who will rewind them back to the bases with the support of his old boy Wikipedian club members where the consensus is already made in somewhere else before they make the final decision in an open forum where they all have already an common view on it before the official rubber stamp is put on the final say. That's why I don't really see that consensus is always good in Wikipedia and to change the views on it dosen't really make an big issue only common sence is needed. Thank you, now I am going to concentrate to other issues here in Wikipedia.Best wishes to you from --Mannerheimo (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

People often think that, but trust me WP:There is no cabal, there's just individuals who have more experience than you of what works as a category. Looking at some of the categories you've created, you've fallen into a common trap of WP:Overcategorization, it's an easy thing to do. But bear in mind that a) a "good" category has 30-50 members and b) we have tools that can find the intersection of categories. So for instance there are 42 members of Category:African-American United States presidential candidates but there's no need to have a category of Category:African-American Presidents of the United States, we can find the intersection of Category:African-American politicians and Category:Presidents of the United States. So if I was you I'd try to avoid creating lots of small intersection categories and think of applying several bigger categories to an article instead.Le Deluge (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you that small categories are not nessery if one big category can solve issue but what I was accually doing was creating an subcategories because the main category is too big. Go and see my categories and look carefully the categories which I have created they are subcategories. Last thing which I would like to mention is that all the users should be treated equally and not saying that other users are better than other. Wikipedia dosen't pay me any sallery so I am doing this as my hobby. I don't buy your essay's which are not the official policy of Wikipedia which is just an philosophical pedantry--Mannerheimo (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Mannerheimo, my intent in posting here was not to have to stop creating and populating categories, and it wasn't to suggest that you're somehow not appreciated or less of an editor than other editors. My intent was to draw your attention to the issue that was arising—which was that many of the categories you have created have been deleted and are being nominated for deletion—and to maybe talk about some different approaches moving forward. That's all. I didn't intend to offend you and I apologise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all you should ask your self who was the User who was pushing the deletion policy on my categories. Secondly you should then ask was it nessessery. Then you can come here to discus about these categories about their future. It is too late come to apologise here on the issues which you have mentioned in your last comment. Thank you anyway --Mannerheimo (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have the answers to your questions. First, I nominated some of your categories, as did several other editors. Secondly, strictly speaking, it wasn't "necessary", but nothing in editing WP is "necessary". A better question is whether it promoted an improvement of Wikipedia. The consensus decisions that have been reached, so far, say yes, since they agreed with deletion. I thought you might appreciate a heads up that I tried to provide, but I get the sense that you're just mad upset and want to stay that way. So good luck to you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responsing to my comment. I really didn't expected from you on thinking this issue with your self and telling the truth what you feel. You are very honest User because you understand critic, which I recpect. But your actions didn't speak for this honesty. If your argument was only improvement of Wikipedia without my categories then I just should say that I don't think that one User Mannerheimo's categories have an very big issue on improvement of Wikipedia , other wise Wikipedia seems to be very fragile project if few categories made by one User Mannerheimo is an an big issue of the improvement of Wikipedia. This is an question which very User should think before taking necessary actions against some other Users editing. --Mannerheimo (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Britain => UK

Finally! (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaggi_Vasudev&diff=next&oldid=737345753) I was just about to change it when I saw you already had. Glad sense eventually prevailed in the Britain vs Great Britain flopping. Thanks :-) Sleety Dribble (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Qatar Airways destinations page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

U.S. presidential travel lists

I have been expanding several articles about individual U.S. presidential administrations by adding a list of international trips to each from Woodrow Wilson through Jimmy Carter. As a result, the lists, List of international presidential trips by Jimmy Carter, List of international presidential trips by Gerald Ford, and List of international presidential trips by Richard Nixon, now redirect to Presidency of Jimmy Carter#List of international trips, Presidency of Gerald Ford#List of international trips, and Presidency of Richard Nixon#List of international trips. I’m not going to redirect the lists of more recent presidents, as their travel was/is more extensive and well documented, and thus warrant stand-alone lists. Drdpw (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't care, destroy my articles as much you want,who it would really serve? You or Wikipedia? Free well and destroy very thing what you think should be destroyed. --Mannerheimo (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New Zealand politicians of Punjabi descent

A tag has been placed on Category:New Zealand politicians of Punjabi descent 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 it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. gadfium 03:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mannerheimo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Modifications to the featured content

Hi. I saw your made changes to several Padma award lists. Just so you know, out of 13 lists that were modified, 5 have been promoted as a featured list after rigorous reviews by other experienced editors and all other lists follow the same format. I am reverting you for now. If you have any objections to this, please start a talk page discussion before you make any modification to the featured content. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Italian institutional referendum, 1946

I reverted your change to the name of the article in question. "Constitutional referendum" is a type of referendum that was specifically created by the Constitution of Italy that entered into force in 1948 (two years later of this referendum). Italian sources normally call this particular referendum "referendum istituzionale" (or, by its long formal name "referendum sulla forma istituzionale dello Stato"). If you want to support your change of name you have to provide reliable sources which call this referendum "constitutional". Cheers, Loudo89 (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It was an referendum on monarchy or republic. Now is it Constitutional or institutional change is just semantics. referendum istituzionale is Italian and this is an English wikipedia. --Mannerheimo (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can provide sources that prove that it is called in a different way in English, there is no reason to disregard Italian usage. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of how it is actually called by reliable sources. Being an Italian law student, I can bring more Italian sources to support my claim if necessary. The difference in name is also important because "constitutional referendum" is an actual (and different) instrument in Italian law. Cheers, Loudo89 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Well this is not an Italian Wikipedia, this is English wikipedia so here we write in English.It is an semantics believe me. Italian law dosen't reply here. I think that Wikipedia above any countries law in the issue of editing. I see this an just an semantic issue. --Mannerheimo (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is about a topic that falls in the general category of Italian law. It therefore needs to use the technical terms of the field it is explaining. Usage by reliable Italian sources supports the name "institutional referendum". Furthermore, the phrase "constitutional referendum" has a specific meaning when used in the context of Italian law that doesn't apply in the case of this referendum (for one, the referendum in 1946 was advisory, while constitutional referendums are legally binding). Of course, it's entirely possible that reliable English sources that deal with Italian law adopt a different terminology. But until you can provide them, your claim is unsupported. Cheers, Loudo89 (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been an Wikipedia user here since 2006. I have never heard that the articles are under nation states laws even if the sourches are taken from official government websides. I take sourches from government websides like ministerial departments to support my sourch but the article's here in wikipedia are under the rules of wikipedia not laws of any sovereign government, self autonomous nation or international organizations. In that case French law, German law, American law, Japanese law and Spanish law should also have an say from the sourches of these countries govermental institutions. I am not going to argue with about this any more but you can accually open an discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard on the issue of sovereign nations law in an wikipedia article. This is an absurd argument that countries law should have first say in Wikipedian article. Seems that where ever Italians go the countries laws are valid there. I gues also in San Marino?!--Mannerheimo (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying that Italian law applies to the article. I am saying that article is about Italian law (the topic of the article is a topic about Italian law), therefore the article needs to use the terminology used for this field of knowledge. For example, "ownership" and "possession" may be used interchangeably in a Wikipedia article that does not deal with law. But in the field of law, these two terms are technical terms, with very different meanings. Using them interchangeably in an article about a legal topic would be wrong.

This is all semantics what you are talking about. I have an solution for this which is not an semantics but realism. Go to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard take this issue there an you can take my arguments there and discuss with Administrators about the laws of Italy in Wikipedia. I stop this conversation here. --Mannerheimo (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Same with the article in question. Undoubtedly, the referendum in 1946 posed a constitutional question, but that does not make it a "constitutional referendum" (which in the field of Italian law is a technical term with a precise meaning). Cheers, Loudo89 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say here than Qua Vadis Wikipedia, Qua Vadis Italy and Qua Vadis User:Loudo89--Mannerheimo (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)