Rathfelder

Medical dictionary definition articles

Hi! I see you're marking a number of medical articles for deletion because they are only dictionary definition sub-stubs without any longer-term promise of becoming proper articles. While I don't have a problem with that, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, could you please consider marking these pages with {{move to wiktionary}} instead, where dictionary definitions are welcomed? -- The Anome (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly will. I didn't realise I could do that. Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOE

Withdrawn proposal

Hey, when you withdraw a proposal that did not meanwhile gain support from any other editor, like here, it is ok to speedily close the discussion yourself. The procedure is very simple:

• insert a blank line after the section title and put this bit of script {{subst:cfd top|'''withdrawn'''}} {{subst:nac}} ~~~~ on this line
• put this bit of script {{subst:cfd bottom}} underneath the discussion
• preview whether this looks ok
• save if it looks ok
• and do not forget to remove the CfD tags from the category pages

Instructions are more elaborate on this page. Don't feel you have to do this, it's just nice if you would. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

AWB

Are you familiair with Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser? It surely helps with tagging a large number of pages simultaneously. Or else I can do it for you after you created a list of categories to be tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a try. Rathfelder (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rathfelder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I feel very much discredited, which is perhaps only right. Even reading Wikipedia is quite upsetting. I would like an opportunity to reinstate myself and show that I have learned from my mistakes and wont repeat them. I still think I can make a positive contribution.

Process

I was not clear how, or indeed if, I was supposed to respond to the community consensus discussion. I didnt feel I was able to put my case.

I feel that the decision was an excessive punishment as far as the WP:BANPOL is concerned. I fully accept that I have done wrong. I recognise that and I would like an opportunity to explain how it happened and show that I have learned from my mistakes.

I had been attacked several times, generally without reasonable cause, and I have not felt much support. I dont feel that the collaborative approach is very effective. Very few projects seem to be operational. It is completely open to individual editors to be confrontational. On one occasion I was threatened with an immediate block because I was said to have committed three copyright infringements. It was true, but they were spaced over three years, were all minor, and one was in respect of material I had written myself. I was very sorry to find that Fayenatic london said that I had been abrasive. That was certainly not intended, and I have done my best to be supportive to other editors. However I have increasingly felt threatened, for example by those who express disbelief that I might not be aware of some policy which they find important, and by those who say that because I did something it should be treated with suspicion. That, of course, has been considerably exacerbated by this block.

I am asking for a more balanced approach. I have put in a lot of time and effort over the last ten years and I think I can properly say that the things I did wrong were a very small part of that. I still think I can make a positive contribution, though I would have to work hard to build up trust.

If I was allowed to return I would propose to continue to avoid categorisation altogether. I would certainly avoid the articles which got me into trouble. However I have done very little Wikipedia:BLP editting and I dont think any apart from Alex Scott-Samuel have been controversial. Biographies of living people understandably attract more attention than most other articles and I have been very careful with them.

History

I started editing in December 2006 primarily working on the history and organisation of the NHS. I did start Socialist Health Association, which was the organisation I worked for, and clearly I had a conflict of interest, although I was then very inexperienced and did not appreciate that was important. In fact the article was almost entirely historical, and I had priviledged access to its archives. I dont think there was anything controversial in it until 2019.

Mostly I worked on articles relating to British healthcare organisations. I didnt do much work on categorisation until 2013, but after 2019 I did a lot of that. The huge majority was completely uncontroversial - adding articles to existing geographical and historical categories and developing existing categorisation schemes.

I was blocked and accused of vandalism while I was creating Dewrance & Co. Ltd, without, as far as I saw it, any justification and without any opportuity to discuss it. I created User:Harry Boardman in December 2016 as an insurance policy. I havent used that since August 2019, and I lost the password so dont have access to it, which is why I didnt mention it.

I created User:Bigwig7 in August 2018 also as an insurance policy. I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel‎ in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view. He was the chair of the Socialist Health Association of which I was the only employee but what he did to me was a very small part of what drove the extensive coverage of his activities in the media. There were battles over the Socialist Health Association article but I kept out of them. Only one significant contribution was from me, and that was defended by other editors, not me. I didnt make any significant edits after 2019 because I realised this was a mistake.

I should add that User:BarleyButt is nothing to do with me, although they have edited both those articles.

I now see that what I did was dishonest. There is no reason for me to do such a thing again. I am now retired and have no employer so there is not likely to be such a stressful situation again. My user name is such that it is immediately apparent to anyone who I am. That is not generally a problem, but it was in that situation.

I am quite upset to be accused of acting "as though he's superior to the community for so long, " I dont feel superior. I am well aware that there are plenty of editors who know a lot more than I do, but I often dont feel much sense of community. There are areas where I have more experience than most editors and I have tried to be helpful, but they are mostly rather out of the way.

I would say in my defence that my actions actually had little effect. I dont think any decisions about categorisation or deletion were altered by my piling in, and my edits on those two articles were all referenced to reputable sources and survived subsequent discussions in which I was not involved. After things settled down in my personal life I decided to keep away.

I value Wikipedia and I have devoted considerable time and attention to improving it over the last few years. I have contributed quite a lot of photographs and I have made financial donations. I maintain my subscription to the Health Service Journal primarily to inform the coverage of NHS articles. I ask that the things I have done wrong should be considered in the context of the things I did which were right. I am happy to accept any restrictions which are thought appropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Appeal declined by the community (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: This is a WP:CBAN. Per WP:UNBAN it needs to be be appealed to WP:AN. Do you want this appeal copied there? Meters (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. I did find the procedure hard to understand. Rathfelder (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request for Rathfelder Meters (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rathfelder (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I cant respond to the discussion, but if the appropriate period of blocking is six months I am content to wait. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Copying your reply to AN thread. Meters (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont understand what edit other projects means. If the idea is to resestablish trust, how can I do that if I am banned? Rathfelder (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You are banned from English Wikipedia, but may still edit on any of the Wikimedia Foundation's other English projects (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_projects). You may also edit articles on other languages' Wikipedias if you are fluent enough. Meters (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Among those is Simple English Wikipedia, but only if you can write simply. Take note: In most cases, a user who broke the rules on another project is not blocked unless they also break the rules on the Simple English Wikipedia. They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user. starship.paint (exalt) 12:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

OK I will have a try at simple English. Not strong enough in any other language. Rathfelder (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

By now it is obvious that this unban request will fail. If it wasn't clear enough from others' comments, some found your unban request lacking because they felt that you did not properly acknowledge that (1) harm was clearly done, and (2) that harm was solely caused by you. Less excuses, more remorse and apology needed, next time. Good luck. starship.paint (exalt) 11:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Rathfelder (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rathfelder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have been banned or blocked for more than a year. During that time I have worked on the Simple English wikipedia. I have done quite a lot of work there without any conflict of interest. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. The circumstances which led me to do that will not happen again. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Wikipedia as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Wikipedia against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Wikipedia in the dispute. I wont do it again as I cant see myself being in that situation again - now being retired. I dont now see any conflicts of interest which might arise. I think I can make constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. Rathfelder (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are community-banned and therefore cannot be unblocked. Because the above is not a request to lift the ban, and does not comply with WP:GAB, I am not submitting it to the community for review. Sandstein 14:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Checkuser data shows no evidence of recent block evasion. Note this user is banned by the community, not just blocked. I'll politely suggest the above request has absolutely no chance of lifting the ban. It'd be a stretch even if the user voluntarily suggested a topic ban, as outlined in the community ban discussion. If, nevertheless, an admin sees fit to take this to the noticeboard, please ping me so I can participate in the discussion. --Yamla (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I am quite happy to accept any restrictions thought appropriate- BLPs or health. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I just spotted this, and I hope you don't mind a comment from me. While socking is part of the problem, that in itself doesn't come close to the full reasons you were blocked. You were primarily blocked for what you used your socks to do. And you have completely failed to address that. I see no chance of an unblock until that happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation and adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Wikipedia against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I wont do it again as I cant see myself being in that situation again - now being retired. I dont really have any conflicts of interest which might arise. But I cant see how else I can address the issue. Advice would be very welcome. Rathfelder (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I think accepting that you were wrong to use Wikipedia the way you did while involved in a real-life dispute should go a long way towards it. So I'd suggest maybe adding that into the unblock request itself? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much. Rathfelder (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do I need to do something more to get this considered? Rathfelder (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  You need to do as Boing! suggested and expand your unblock request. You don't need to make a new one- just edit the existing one(you need to open the edit window directly to do that- using the Reply feature won't work). 331dot (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I'd support an unblock now. It's clear that Rathfelder was editing at a personally stressful time, and that he understands what he did wrong and won't repeat it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  • An account of Rathfelder's socking is at Wikipediocracy. Bigwig7 also weighed in at cfd discussions to support Rathfelder: eg this one (Apr 2021) and this one (Nov 2022). Rathfelder may have retired but will still feel unfairly outnumbered at cfds. The other sockpuppet was User:Harry Boardman; we have all 3 editing Alex Scott-Samuel. Perspicax (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

    I am planning to avoid cfds, at least for a while. I think I got too involved in them. Rathfelder (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

    FWIW, I think that Rathfelder's constructive edits on simplewiki show that they can be constructive without having problems, and I would support an unblock. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Does the decline of the block mean that it has to be addressed to the community asking for its removal, or a "lifting of the ban"? How would that be worded and submitted so Rathfelder can come back home (cook the fatted calf upon Rathfelder's return, dibs on the wishbone). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have now been blocked for more than two years. May I ask to be unblocked? In the last 2 years I have been contributing to Plain English and Wikimedia. Rathfelder (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would support an unban. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  How am I supposed to raise this issue? User:Boing! said Zebedee any advice? Rathfelder (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The best way to go at it would be to write your unban request and ask someone here to copy it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard so the community can discuss it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Could this go on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard?

  I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Wikipedia as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Wikipedia against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Wikipedia in the dispute.

  I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English wikipedia which need amendment. Rathfelder (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done, I have posted it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban appeal from Rathfelder Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have unblocked you following a successful appeal to the community. Welcome back. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'll add: Your successful appeal did not invalidate your existing topic bans from categorization and XfD, or your single-account restriction. By the wording of those bans, you are technically able to appeal them immediately (six months have passed since they were imposed), but as some personal advice, I would wait at least a year. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much. I will stay away from categorisation, BLPs and discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Can I now ask for my topic bans to be lifted? Rathfelder (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Congratulations on your unban! QuicoleJR (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I need an administrator to help me ask for my request to be unbanned. Could you help me User:Girth Summit?Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Categorisation topic ban

Hi - I cannot find anything to suggest that your topic ban from categories has been lifted. You were explicitly told that it was still in effect back in January when the block was lifted, and you undertook to stay away from them. Am I missing something? Girth Summit _(blether) 05:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry. I was adding pictures and I forgot, as I am allowed to categorise on wikipedia. I dont think I did anything at all controversial. When I said I would keep away from categorisation I was thinking of the systematic work I used to do on categories, and I have not done anything like that. I was thinking of asking whether the topic ban could be lifted. Rathfelder (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Your entire talk page is awash with notices saying that categories you presumably created have been nominated for deletion - seems you've been doing some fairly controversial things. If you're topic banned for categorisation, you can't create categories. Or nominate them for deletion. Or discuss them. Or even add them to a page. You are at liberty to request the topic ban be lifted at AN, but until then, knock it off entirely. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Very few of the categories mentioned above were created by me. They are mostly categories I have editted. And yes I will be careful not to do any more categorising. But what do I do if I create a new article that needs a category? Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't have the Autopatrolled flag - any articles you create will go into the NPP feed. An experienced new page patroller will review then in due course, and add some appropriate categories. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Could someone categorise the article I've started - Social care? And can I ask that my topic bans could be reviewed? Its been 3 years now. Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

February 2026

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  asilvering (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What did I do? Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rathfelder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Your reason here I was not told that I could not contribute to discussions - other than those about categorisations. I have been careful not to edit any pages about living persons. I did accidentally add a category to a page I had created a couple of months ago, but I wont do that again. This feels very unfair. Can someone please tell me exactly what I am blocked from, as I dont have any clear wording? Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The wording was, indeed, clear, as you confirmed and agreed to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) Please see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Voluntary#:~:text=Rathfelder. The restriction states: Rathfelder is subject to a one-account restriction, and subjected to indefinite topic bans from categorisation and from XfD discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I was told "you cannot mention categories on talk pages, or anywhere else". I didnt know I was banned from XfD discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, looking at the answer you link, it seems that @Rathfelder had misread the topic ban as applying to BLPs rather than XfDs. Which ultimately doesn't change much, as they violated both simultaneously today. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, whether the topic ban was the one Rathfelder says they believed they had, or the one they actually had, the edit they made immediately after asking for the tban to be lifted was a violation of the tban. -- asilvering (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding categories, you didn't accidentally add a category to a page, but participated in many CfD discussions while topic-banned (August 4, August 27, September 23). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I dont think I have participated in many CfD discussions. I have had many hundreds of invitations to do so, but I have ignored them. Rathfelder (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I was told I was banned from from categorization and XfD. I understood that to mean discussions about the deletion of categories. I think bans should be clear and unambiguous. XFD is not clear. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, now you know what XFD means (I hope). So you can avoid those going forward and hopefully be able to make a tban appeal in six months. -- asilvering (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldnt be better if bans were in clear English? Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Grape surgery

On 1 April 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grape surgery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that they did surgery on a grape (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grape surgery. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Grape surgery), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 19,024 views (1,585.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2026 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

HurricaneZeta^C 00:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Ways to improve Asset Invest

Hello, Rathfelder,

Thank you for creating Asset Invest.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The first source states the company dissolved before 2021, but the article states the company is currently in operation. Could you clear this up? Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hurricane Wind and Fire}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs) (Why I declined your draft)🔥 23:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Companies house say its dissolved, but the BBC say its revived. I thought I would wait a bit and have another look. Rathfelder (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1745 in Brazil

A tag has been placed on Category:1745 in Brazil indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 23:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1767 in Brazil

A tag has been placed on Category:1767 in Brazil indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 23:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1921 in Abkhazia

A tag has been placed on Category:1921 in Abkhazia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 23:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1705 in Vietnam

A tag has been placed on Category:1705 in Vietnam indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 23:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1700s in Vietnam

A tag has been placed on Category:1700s in Vietnam indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 00:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Films directed by Jalal Merhi

A tag has been placed on Category:Films directed by Jalal Merhi indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 21:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1888 in Bahrain

A tag has been placed on Category:1888 in Bahrain indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 01:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)