Open main menu

Contents

Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svgThis user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Category:Film scores by Don Davis has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Film scores by Don Davis, 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. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

HiEdit

I have forgotten the reason you gave a year or so ago why you feel the need to include class= importance= inside category tags, where in 99% of the cases categories are not assessed in any way or form, in assessment systems for projects... Good that your page is archived now, I just cannot remember why you do it.. cheers JarrahTree 13:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Because I tend to copy the class and importance parameters from the categories to the articles. Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

OK - thanks for your reply, I dont agree with doing it, and as far as I can tell there isnt any apparent rule/policy law against it either, so thanks, cheers and appreciate your explanation JarrahTree 13:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I need more information on head boy Wyatt Long (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Task forceEdit

The best thing I have seen all week! I have often been concerned that there was no concerted effort to tie in all Byzantine subjects and issues - well done! May it (the task force) have a very productive and healthy organization of articles and categories !!!! JarrahTree 09:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, though the task force was created by User:Cplakidas and not myself. I think it is quite an improvement. The Index of Byzantine Empire-related articles keeps growing, but there was no Project to cover the relevant articles.

I have contributed a few articles such as the Siege of Phasis and Baduarius (Scythia), and there never was much of an interest from the various WikiProjects. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The very important aspects of Byzantine history are important to understand the context and history of Istanbul/Constantinople - impossible without it JarrahTree 09:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Also important to the history of Anatolia, the Balkans, and a number of other areas. Italian Medieval history, for example, does not make much sense without the Gothic War (535–554), the Byzantine Papacy, the Exarchate of Ravenna, and the Catepanate of Italy. All periods of Byzantine presence in the Italian Penisnsula. Dimadick (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, I suppose I would have liked to see it a project rather than a task force - but what ever works more power to it!!! JarrahTree 10:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

just a queryEdit

what would it take (in other words, what is required) to get you to agree to stop putting class=\importance= in category tags? regardless of how many thousands you have already done? JarrahTree 13:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does it bother you so much? I don't understand it. Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

OK - I suppose it is my sense of where something is not needed or utilized in that place it should not be added - leaving coding in templates that do not require it (the thing is there is a lot that you do not leave it in like the archeology by years which you have been doing which is really good, great - as it really needed the years) is that having unused coding - I know your explanation already - Is like having a personal memo inside template text, and for me it seems that wikipedia category space is not really designed for something like that. The fact that no-one else seems in the slightest interested in the issue, I (and I am only one of a very few of your fellow compatriots who works in category talk space with project tagging- the big volume people/editors seem to prefer main space) may be completely wrong, but I do think where we dont have it - that it is better that way. Problem it is unlikely anyone else will venture into the subject, is I'll leave it - but my curiosity got the better of me a to whether there was a good way to reduce the usage of the coding, but if no one else is in the conversation, its just me, and I definitely dont know much, so sorry to have bothered. The point as I always makes is the sheer volume of your good work outdoes the bits that I have taken issue with in the past - keep up the good work!! JarrahTree 13:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC).

problemEdit

geology goes into time pre-human, and consequently pre-historic - to attribute an aspect of millions of years of pre-human or pre historic with a 'history' tag is an unfortunate misunderstanding of both history and geology as intellectual disciplines. JarrahTree 23:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Even more so Category_talk: xxx rebellions - sociology ?? - military history is what you should have been putting there - surely if you understand what you are doing you would realise that?

I really think the problem is if you simply 'read the talk page' of an area you are editing - when you simply 'lift' what you find you are multplying others misunderstandings a thousand fold - there are serious mis-tagging of many subjects in the talk pages of categories - that are clearly 'wrong' in the sense that earlier taggers are unaware of the range of projects available, or even deliberately mis-tagging. JarrahTree 00:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Rebellion has only been tagged by WikiProject Sociology, as it part of social conflict. I added WikiProject Military history myself, but I am far from certain that they are interested. After all, militaries are often not involved in the incidents covered. Dimadick (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Book of EstherEdit

You added three categories to Book of Esther, 4th, 2nd and 1st century BCE. Since the article mentions 4th as the most accepted date for the original version of the book, I removed the other two categories. If you think that was a mistake, please explain here or on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions revisions and additions to the text in the 2nd and 1st century BCE. Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Which is only one point of view, and only additions/revisions. Is it common to add more century categories in such cases? Debresser (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In books articles, we tend to list and categorize the different years of publication. For example the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française mentions that the original version was published in 1687, but then we list and categorize various editions until 1935. Dimadick (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I also noted that regarding the Hebrew version the article says it is from the 4th century and that it was redacted by the Great Assembly, which took place not that many years or decades after the events of the Book of Esther, which would probably keep us in the 4 century BCE. It is the Aramaic, Greek and Latin versions that are ascribed in the article to the "Middle Ages", "late 2nd to early 1st century", and the time of Jerome (c. 400 CE), respectively. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Greek version is not a mere translation, as it includes additional text. I am not certain whether the Latin one has any major differences, so I did not take it into account. Dimadick (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in Burkina Faso listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Women in Burkina Faso. Since you had some involvement with the Women in Burkina Faso redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Films about hebephiliaEdit

I would love to see your imput on this discussion Category talk:Films about hebephilia --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Project on Lumièrè ShortfilmEdit

Hello, my name is Sofia Hnidey. I am a native Spanish speaker student currently studying Comunication and Digital Media at the Tecnológico de Monterrey. I am currently working on an article about a shortfilm made by the Lumièrè Brothers called Procession at Seville and bullfighting Scenes. This project is for my public discourse and Academic Writing class and I could use some help in grammar and sentence structure. If you have the time and want to help, I would be very grateful. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofia Hnidey (talkcontribs) 17:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the article you are working on? There is no article on Procession at Seville. Dimadick (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thelmadatter/Procession_at_Seville_and_bullfighting_scenes Sorry and thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofia Hnidey (talkcontribs) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits all need to be reverted and discussed firstEdit

Your recent edits to several polities known to ancient historiography, assigning them as "states established in such and such a century" is precisely what should not be done here (Original research). There are numerous competing views on any dates before 1000 BC, and precisely what century they would fall in, and needless to say there is nothing like an establishment record to confirm in what year, century or millennium any "state" that old was "established", or by whom, whatever "establishment" would mean in the 2nd millennium BC.

Philip Mexico (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your view contradicts the sources in the articles themselves and the historians behind them. Dimadick (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately on the same topic: you have been assigning these categories to articles such as Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia) and Sumer. Are you aware that these never were "states" or "territories"? The first is a modern name for an archaeological culture, whereas the second is an indigenous name for an area that was made up of many smaller polities, and that was used well after the 20th century BC, the period to which you assigned its "disestablishment"? Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is mostly a list of city-states and their activities, and in itself is not much different from other decentralized political areas. I assign disestablishment to the period of loss of political independence according to the sources.

Currently every category uses the dates in the articles themselves, so there is no original research.Dimadick (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem. Sumer, to take an example, did not "lose its political independence" at the end of the second millennium BC. The article is in pretty bad shape, but even so I have a hard time understanding how you read that into it. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you might want to rethink this kind of categorization. I am not going to revert this but I would not be surprised if someone else steps in after me and starts asking the same kind of questions. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Should I assume you did not read the section on "Fall and Transmission" which covers the fall of Sumer? Dimadick (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I read it; please assume good faith. But as I said above, the article is in pretty bad state. A term like "the fall of Sumer" is actually wrong in itself. I can understand that you assign a "disestablishment" date to something like Ur III or the Akkadian Empire, but since Sumer never was a state or a polity, it cannot "fall" or be "disestablished". The same goes for, say, the Hurrians, which you have also categorized. And the region that is called Sumer remained very important politically well after Ur III. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am quite aware of that, but the "ends" of particular polities do not typically mean that they have left no legacy or that the political situation was simple. And unfortunately the article on the Hurrians is the only one which covers most of the Hurrian states. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I don't think I agree with these categorizations (or your arguments), and again I would invite you to rethink them, but I actually don't want to spend much time on it and am not going to revert it. Anyway, happy editing! --Zoeperkoe (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Please take the Canaan discussion to the talk page. I'd appreciate it if you didn't restore your edit until this is resolved. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not planning to restore the edit, since it is not among my priorities right now.

I am just puzzled why Philip Mexico is claiming "consensus" in a discussion involving 3 persons. Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Phoenicia establishmentEdit

You add 16th century in this edit. But there is already 12th century on the page. Which is correct? Debresser (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions, with a source, that Phoenicia was established c. 1500 BC, the last year of the 16th century BC. Then it mentions that c. 1200 BC, Phoenicia started its "high point" as a sea power. That does not mean it was founded in 1200 BC. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
So then perhaps you should have removed the 12th-century category? Debresser (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

White savior narrative in filmEdit

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at White savior narrative in film, you may be blocked from editing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

What personal analysis? This is literally the text we have on Keanu Reeves' origin. Dimadick (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Dimadick. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Dimadick. 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)

List of United States Presidential firstsEdit

I noticed you've edited this List and also commented on its talkpage recently. I want to work on improving it, especially the large amount of unsourced statements. I've posted a reminder on its talkpage about sourcing/verifiability/etc. Any help would be great. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Santas's Workshop2.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Santas's Workshop2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Falklands WarEdit

I don't believe that category is applicable, I have started the talk page discussion per WP:BRD and invite you to self-revert and join the discussion. WCMemail 21:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David Seaman (journalist)Edit

Hello, Dimadick. You have new messages at Talk:David Seaman (journalist).
Message added 14:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:OVERLINKEdit

Hello! Country and state names, and other well-known place names, like Paris, should not be bluelinked. See WP:OVERLINK, for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with Overlink, but I think it is poorly thought-out. The instruction makes the names of these place names not stand out from the rest of the text. I doubt this helps in the Wikification of the articles. Dimadick (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Well then you should create a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking (or another appropriate place) with your arguments. --Fixuture (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho HoEdit

Merry, merry!Edit

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)  

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!Edit

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

catholicismEdit

Is a viable stand alone project - I fail to see why you still keep adding it as a subsidiary or accessory to the christianity project - you may have explained to me your version somewhere on this talk page - but I still believe it is like your adding class= and importance= to category pages, unnecessary and quite weird. cheers and have a safe new year JarrahTree 06:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It effectively leaves WikiProject Christianity without the articles of one of its main daughter projects. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not a reasonable excuse - there are quite a few parent projects that have daughter projects that have the larger contents - the importance of your work (despite my complaints) and the few others is that talk pages of categories come under projects of some sort or other - whether one project is more edited or not in misses the point - catholicism is stand alone and should be considered that way, anyways we seem to be still shuffling along - cheers.. JarrahTree 06:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not an excuse. I do not even see why Catholicism is a separate project instead of a task force. Dimadick (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough an opinion then - I see there can be very good reasons why Anglicanism and Catholicism are separate projects - Christianity is more of an 'umbrella' rather than a content project or category anyways - most task forces that I have watched are quite perilous and have a tendency to die on insitigation imho JarrahTree 06:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not certain about that. WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Film, and WikiProject United States have an ever increasing number of task forces. They seem to get populated and edited rather often. Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the ones i have watched have been almost inactive as inactive projects... JarrahTree 06:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It does tend to be the case that task forces die out from inactivity. Having said that, it is also true that many, possibly most, articles relating to Catholicism also relate to one or more other Christianity subprojects, and we would want, where possible, to reduce the number of banners in many cases, if only for aesthetic reasons on the talk page. One thing that comes to mind with me, as an individual, is that a project/task force which has about 15% of the planet's population as a membership base is maybe a lot less likely to become inactive than others, but I dunno. I suppose this could be taken up at WT:X, possibly the topic directly and possibly in relation to other groups. One particular point of some possible concern to me is what to do with articles which have articles on those specific topics which can be found in other, print, reference sources. So, for instance, if Saint Augustine has articles with some significant and possibly different content in reference works related to Catholicism, and broader Christianity, and Saints, and Christian theology, and (and I think this is the case) one or more Reformation-era churches, would we be better off tagging it only for the most essential topics (whatever they might be) or with the parent Christianity banner and any or all relevant related projects? I honestly don't know what the answer might be there. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I am assuming you mean Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and not Augustine of Canterbury (d. 604). They are both saints.

Augustine of Hippo was a Roman from Late Antiquity and his works precede the East–West Schism (1054). He is not a Roman Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox Church considers him one of its saints, although the quality of his theology is disputed. His Orthodox feast day is June 15 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics).

Due to Augustine teaching the doctrine of Predestination, he has been a major influence in Protestant thought. Augustine has been cited as an influence by John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Huldrych Zwingli. The doctrine of total depravity, shared by Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, and Methodists, derives from the theological arguments of Augustine.

For a former Manichaeist who converted to Christianity relatively late (32-years-old at conversion), Augustine has had a large impact on Christian thought. Dimadick (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I knew most of the above already, and, honestly, those reasons were among those I had for personally nominated that article for the Christianity core article list. I am starting a discussion at WT:X regarding how to deal with such articles, and I would welcome the input of @JarrahTree: and anyone else to that discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Fictional charactersEdit

See here I reverted you per the last bullet point at WP:CATDEF: we don't categorize fictional and real-world phenomena in the same category schemes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a daughter category, and it is standard practice. Dimadick (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:CAT actually uses this as the example of what not to do. Stop adding this back in. Fictional character categories are not to be added as a subcat of real-world entries. Please refer to the policies and guidelines if you don't know and ask if you need help. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Category Fictional characters is a subcategory of People, and most fictional character categories follow the people category tree. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay If so, then there's a lot of work to be done. No reason to make more of it. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually I see your suggested guideline introducing problems where none previously existed. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't write it--I just applied it. I've seen examples like Andy Bernard in Category:Cornell University alumni and I removed it--he didn't graduate from there because he didn't exist. Fictional characters don't belong in categories with actual human beings and the guideline was written to keep those two schemes separate. If you want to change that, then propose it but don't keep deliberately miscategorizing. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Andy Bernard does not belong in the parent category, but he would belong in a subcategory about fictional alumni. The parent-daughter category tree provides enough disambiguation to avert any reasonable confusion. And I still believe you are the one miscategorizing the fictional characters category away from the proper parent. I find your editing rather disruptive in breaking the category trees. Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I think you're actually probably on to something with the back-and-forth. I've posted at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#well_let.27s_talk_about_it_then. Maybe we can make headway there and just settle it with some language in the actual guideline itself to avoid this confusion. Thanks for your perspective. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Internment of Italian AmericansEdit

The most recent edit to the Internment of Italian Americans since yours is a mix of good and bad, but I'm not sure how it should be fixed. Would you mind taking a look at it? Thmazing (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!Edit

Hello, Dimadick! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not typically join Wikiprojects, but do try to tag relevant pages with their banners and/or try to improve their categorizations. New projects often need help. I hope you have several interested editors. Dimadick (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

HughesEdit

You are restoring material because it is referenced, but the reference cited for the paragraph says nothing about the Hughes family whatsoever. Did you even look or are you just assuming because I am editing from an IP that I am a vandal or an idiot? Just because a reference is provided doesn't mean the information is relevant, or that its mention isn't giving undue weight to trivia. 50.37.121.238 (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mostly a vandal, because as far as I see you are only deleting material and adding nothing. And you affecting articles with low traffic, where fewer editors are likely to notice. Dimadick (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
That last works both ways. Low traffic articles are also the ones that, because fewer editors are likely to notice, tend to accumulate undue content, unreferenced nonsense, original research, ephemera and trivia of no informational value, and in some cases abject crap - material that should be deleted. 50.37.115.249 (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Jewish people of World War II has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Jewish people of World War II, 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. Arguablefool (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:1st century in Jerusalem has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:1st century in Jerusalem, 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) 10:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire, 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. GreyShark (dibra) 20:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OKEdit

I might have forgotten your rationale/proof as to why you think Christianity/Catholicism projects are melded the way you do it - but I think the time has come - show me proof of a policy or procedure - apart from your personal prediliction as to why catholicism items have in your opinion cannot stand alone? I am not questioning the architecture part - I still take issue with you adding class= importance= when they are clearly not needed - but the christianity/catholic combination sends a very weird message to anyone reading the talk page tags JarrahTree 08:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Check the article Catholicism, which is tagged for WikiProject Anglicanism. The term "Catholic" is wider and older than the Catholic Church.

And I think you are the one with the burden of proof here. Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Imho the Catholicism tagging is outright incorrect - your work? JarrahTree 08:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really. You haven't read the article Catholicism, have you? Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I still think you are wrong in placing catholicism inside the christianity project - as to whether parts of the various denominations over time self identify with notions of being 'catholic' in their internal thinking is irrelevent - the tagging still is the issue - but as always you plod away through a vast array of very useful tagging - I simply notice your presence when you mangle tagging that I have done - on my watch list - as they used to say - have a nice day JarrahTree 08:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am also working on my watch list. I try to maintain categories and articles which I have worked on, or which have drawn my interest. Dimadick (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Late antiquityEdit

I'm sorry about this. Normally we have a bot do theses things in Vietnamese Wikipedia so I supposed that it worked simillarly here. Thank you so much for informing me and moving the contents of the category also. Greenknight dv (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

My badEdit

Was late...didn't notice.[1] I meant wikiprojects, not categories obviously. Anyways, it's really unfitting to list all those redundant/unrelated WP's at (major) category talk pages like this one for no reason. It would be like adding "WikiProject Uzbekistan" to the talk page of "Category:Wars involving the Russian Empire" or "WikiProject Algeria" to the talk page of "Category:Wars involving the Roman Empire". - LouisAragon (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

More important; thanks for your hard work during all this time with regard to WP assessments! Perhaps overlooked by many, but this place definetely can't operate properly without people like you : -) - LouisAragon (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Category talk:European Court of Human Rights cases involving SwitzerlandEdit

The text that you are putting into the category talks has importance twice in Human Rights. Please correct when you put into other category talks...Naraht (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and alerting me.

Category:555 crimes has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:555 crimes, 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) 10:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Category Marvel ComicsEdit

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hawker Hunter Tower Bridge incident. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Hawker Hunter Tower Bridge incident? I do not remember ever editing this article. Dimadick (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Curious question?Edit

We've never met before so this is not any commentary about you, I'm just curious... is your username supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek answer to a multiple choice question? If so, very well played. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually no. My family name (in the Greek language) starts with "Ntik" (Ντικ), sounds like the English term "dick", and most of my male relatives are nicknamed "Dick". And "Dima" is a nickname used by my brother. Dimadick (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So disappointed. I'll have to get my fix of juvenile humor elsewhere :( But thanks!
FWIW this is the kind of lunacy I was envisioning:

::Why am I ignoring your Talk page complaint?

Ayoureditwasalreadyrevertedbysomebodyelse
BthedraftaswrittenclearlyviolatesBLP
Citspossibleyouarerightbutijustdontcare
Dimadick

Factchecker_atyourservice 21:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Kala, Queen of the Netherworld1.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kala, Queen of the Netherworld1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

LernaEdit

I am already aware of where Lerna is located. I simply misspelled the name. It was an honest mistake that anyone could have made. I apologize for having made the error and would like to thank you very much for correcting it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Gwynnes LimitedEdit

Hi Dimadick. Looking at your edit there would you mind telling me your logic employed in switching order to put cause after effect? Surely it was better the way it was? You like things slightly screwed up and more complicated? Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The sentence was too complicated and did not even have punctuation points. Dimadick (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Buddhists by period has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Buddhists by period, 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) 06:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary History Style EditEdit

Dear Dima,

I have proposed a style edit of the article Contemporary History, to which you have recently contributed. I see you have a great many edits under your belt: would you like to review my work with your sharp historical eye as I begin this one?

Duxwing (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What is this?Edit

. . . that you posted in an edit summary, thereby permanently enshrining your contribution in Wikipedia's record: "The dating was off by a century. Please do learn to tell the difference between the 3rd and 4th centuries". Do you usually respond to typographical errors by assuming that the editors responsible can't count, can't spell, don't care whether their work is accurate? What was so important about this digital tongue-lashing that it needed to be recorded for posterity? The next time you feel the need to spike the football in somebody's face, maybe you should consider the time and effort that other editors put into making sure that articles they've created and curated for years remain neat and tidy, and then imagine if they just decided that it isn't worth being subjected to this kind of verbal abuse by editors who should know better, given their long history of otherwise productive edits. P Aculeius (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

One of my biggest frustrations in Wikipedia after years of editing is than many of the articles (and consequent categories) include inaccurate or contradictory dates. I regularly edit articles on Roman history, trying to correct errors. (Such as someone having the bright idea to add Commodus is a category about 1st-century Romans). Your "typographical error" confused figures from the Crisis of the Third Century with the dates of the late Constantinian dynasty. As an experienced editor, re-reading your own contributions is advised. The error stayed in place for several days. Dimadick (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Nobody objects to your correcting errors. This is about enshrining comments suggesting that other editors "can't tell the difference" between one century and another, and need to educate themselves on the topic. I've written and/or revised hundreds of articles on figures from Roman history over the last eight years, and I know perfectly well when the third century was. I didn't "confuse figures" from two different periods, I typed the date range wrongly while formatting an addition to the article. Errors like this can happen if you misread something, if normally reliable source material already contains an error that you don't notice, or if your fingers are misplaced on the keyboard as you type. It's a simple error, not evidence of illiteracy, ignorance, or incompetence, as your comment about my ability to tell the difference between the third and fourth centuries implies.
Before you resort to the permanence of edit summaries to make sure that your low opinion of other veteran editors of this project remains on display, I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Civility, taking especial note of remarks such as, "Be careful with edit summaries", and "Edit Summary Dos and Don'ts . . . Don't: make snide comments. Make personal remarks about editors. Be aggressive." Because those tips clearly cover this situation. Instead of calling me stupid, you should just have fixed the mistake and said, "corrected dates" or something equally neutral. That's what I would have expected from someone like you, instead of a personal attack. P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

NecromaniaEdit

Hi. The plot description is way too long for such a simple script, see WP:FILMPLOT, which is why I drastically cut it. Your reversal also removed the titlecard I added, so if you want to work on the plot, please be a little careful with the rest of the edits. Kind regards, Yintan  06:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

When writing about Ed Wood's film, a few years ago, I actually searched for books that went in detail about their plot, its meaning, the production, and distribution of the films. You delete everything down to a stub and claim it is unsourced. Dimadick (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
You're right, that's my mistake, it was sourced. But it's still way too long and you've removed the titlecard again. Yintan  06:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Toast sandwichEdit

-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 18:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

19th century in Great BritainEdit

How is this of interest to the UK Project? The category scope specifically defines it as the island, not the state that later merged into the UK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the island and its history are covered by the UK Project. Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Birth Of The 10thEdit

It's Technically a TV Special, not a film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourlaxers (talkcontribs) 20:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a television film. Dimadick (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:7th millennium BC in Greece has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:7th millennium BC in Greece, 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) 08:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
In recognition of all the meaningful work you do here :) Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:5th millennium BC in fiction has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:5th millennium BC in fiction, 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) 04:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

?Edit

What part of any of the policies that I have linked to o you not understand? Is this a WP:CIR issue for you? MarnetteD|Talk 16:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You have linked me to policies of a single WikiProject, not Wikipedia itself. I have been working on company-related articles for several years now. Distibution rights are always included in company-relevant categories.

etc.

What makes these categories useful are their wide scope. WikiProject Film has the bad habit of changing policies constantly, based on a very small pool of editors. Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A) WP:CATDEF is clearly NOT the policy of a single wikiproject. It is a Wikipedia wide policy and b) the Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies that you mention is not Wikipedia itself. MarnetteD|Talk 16:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies? Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't like this guideline at all. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Same issueEdit

I dont agree with your usage of Christianity - Catholicism, as well as Biography - Royalty, and fail to see you ever offer me a policy or principle that is embedded in specific rules or suggestions as generally accepted by the wider community rather than your personal possession of a long standing personal practice - cheers JarrahTree 09:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We do not have a WikiProject Royalty and your tags do not attach the page to it. WikiProject Biography is the one with a task force about royalty and nobility. See the page about Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility has at some stage been a stand alone project (just like Catholicism is), just because there has been a change, does not deny the possibility that the project status may revert to the stand alone status again sometime. It could not have the basic 'wikiproject' status unless it had been so at some stage. If it had for its length of existence been a task force, it could be found in the title/name. JarrahTree 09:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

For the time being, the tag for just "royalty" instead of biography renders any page and category invisible to the Project. Basically the tag does not do anything. The same deal with other defunct WikiProjects. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I object strongly to lesser clued editors wandering into projects and calling them defunct without explaining why and rendering things a real mess - however in relation to royalty thanks for your good faith response - I still get amazed at some of your edits though (some of your 'freely associating collections of projects' from 4 or 5 years ago leave me hnestly staggered at times - for whatever the reason... recently you have been missing your long lists of projects) but keep up the good work ! 09:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I typically attach whatever Projects have expressed interest in the main topic. If only one Project has expressed interest, I add that one. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nah, lets not get into a protracted discussion about this one now - cheers for the moment JarrahTree 09:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Guidlines on Miramax movies.Edit

Like you, I'm not liking the Wikipedia guidelines on how Miramax movie articles should be written, but there's nothing we can do to change it. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Because of this, my interest in Miramax is gone. I'm sorry. I only wish this didn't happen in the first place. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Second Korean WarEdit

An article that you have been involved in editing—Second Korean War—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I need more information on head boy and girl Wyatt Long (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your excellent edits categorizing, sorting, and wikilinking in Roman biographical articles! P Aculeius (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:SKEPTIC tagsEdit

Thanks for your work tagging relevant categories. —PaleoNeonate – 18:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. WikiProject Skepticism happens to be one of my favorite WikiProjects, due to its global scope and decent goals. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page ReviewingEdit

Hello, Dimadick.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

have a safe holiday seasonEdit

If I dont cross paths before, (watching your edits on Australian topics on my watchlist), but irregardless of that - have a very safe and enjoyable christmas new year season JarrahTree 10:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Stay safe as well. Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dimadick. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RacismEdit

I request you to comment on this talk page again, because you have commented[2] on a similar issue that I have raised now on Talk:Racism#Contemporary. Discussion is too stale but sources "do not include the relation" between racism and skin products/caste but the WP:OR is ongoing. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences surveyEdit

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017Edit

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Jefferson Davis Park, Washington. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
There is nothing whatsoever about this article that has anything even vaguely related to do with DEATH. Or urban planning (it's in a rural area numbnuts). A roadside carrion which is in the park is NOT a fucking sculpture. A park started by a veterans organization in the US has nothing to do with Former countries. That project looks after articles about gee what a surprise former countries.Consensus applies to all content, dipwad. What happens on other articles had absolutely no relevance to what happens here. I'm fed up with yoyo's trying to politicize every fucking thing on Earth. There is a discussion on the fucking article's talk. PARTICIPATE IN IT AND STOP EDIT WARRING. John from Idegon (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are disruptive and frankly amount to vandalism. You are unfamiliar with the scope of WikiProjects, including anything related to parks, memorials, or List of Confederate monuments and memorials. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Jefferson Davis Park, Washington, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edits and deletions. What comments? Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You removed a whole section from the article talk page. And I'm a project coordinator. What articles are covered by any given project is subject to local consensus. This stops now. The project spam is a recent addition which I've removed per BRD. Establish a consensus before replacing it. And if you refactor my talk contributions again, I'll take you straight to ANI. Continue with the edit war and we'll be discussing this at ANEW. Projects cannot take ownership of pages. Period. John from Idegon (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis Park, WikiProjectsEdit

Please give your input as to why those WikiProject(s) should be listed. I opened a section on Talk:Jefferson Davis Park, Washington to discuss them and I was hoping for your contribution. I can see a direct link for a few of them, but some of them have me scratching my head. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution(s), I was hoping to settle the issues with the WikiProjects so most if not all of them can be put back in place. I'm still hopeful that John will join the conversation with some positive contributions as well. Thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Would you care to add those WikiProjects again as John does not seem to want to add to the discussion. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
You got used. Gilmore had you do that because if he did it, he'd exceed 3RR. It's clear as day there is no consensus. His claim that just because I haven't responded in the new section he started, that somehow means there's no consensus, is ludicrous. I made my views clear in the discussion we had last week. Coffman and I are in agreement. Pike has expressed partial support of our position. You and Gilmore are not in agreement. The only vague consensus is status quo. I'll be taking Gilmore's behavior to an administrator. Sorry for going off on you above. Dealing with this guy is as frustrating as attempting suicide with a hammer. John from Idegon (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I am actually returning to Wikipedia editing after a few days of mostly listening to music and hanging out with my brother. I am not really aware of how the conversation continued following my last post. Thanks for the heads up. Dimadick (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

  Happy Holidays
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a peaceful time at the Holidays. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Robert E. LeeEdit

As a recent contributor to Talk:Robert E. Lee, you are receiving this notice for an RfC at of a proposed restatement of a wp:primary source which contains more points than the existing block quote from the letter. The primary source is a 1856 letter of Lee’s to his wife from Texas as found at Alexander Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83. Opponents have seen wp:original research in the proposal as drawing conclusions not found in the primary source. A rewrite of the first proposal follows an edit break. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

SnopesEdit

FYI -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' GreetingsEdit

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Dimadick (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Dimadick, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

HNYEdit

  Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Jane Musoke-Nteyafas for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jane Musoke-Nteyafas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Musoke-Nteyafas (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Cartney23 (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sviatoslav's invasion of BulgariaEdit

Hi Dimadick. I am probably displaying my own ignorance here, but I wondered why you removed the '10th century in the Byzantine Empire' category from this article? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Because it is already in subcategories Category:960s in the Byzantine Empire and Category:970s in the Byzantine Empire. We don't usually list subcategories along with their parents. Dimadick (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Always something new to learn on here. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman–Sasanian War (421–422), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Status quo ante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speeedily rename a categoryEdit

Your opinionEdit

Hi. Based on your recent comments on Talk:Elizabeth I of England, I thought that you might be interested in this discussion. I'll be glad if you share your opinions. Keivan.fTalk 18:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Ageing and cultureEdit

Is much more relevant to a large number of items that never had anything or the marvellous combination of projects that really were not related at all - trust the new year is going ok for you - cheers...

The actual project categories are a bit of mess at the project, but then, just like the project, I am ageing as well :) JarrahTree 09:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten that this WikiProject was around. Should it also cover articles like senescence and progeroid syndromes, since they are biological aspects of aging?

The new year has been going rather well. After a month of nasty coughs and medication, I am back in full health. Several other sick people in my family have also recovered. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pleased to hear health issues clearing up - the implication of the project title to me suggests the mediacl/social/psychological issues - biology might need to be a parallel project in the items you mention JarrahTree 09:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject SculptureEdit

Since this remains as dead as a doornail, I don't see much point in adding tags, especially when they push the active Visual arts project down the list. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I was not aware it was inactive again. Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Connie CorleoneEdit

Can you patrol this article, a revert any redirect? Valoem talk contrib 15:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


I have placed it on my watchlist, but I already have some trouble with patrolling articles I have created or significantly edited. There are several hundred changes per day. Dimadick (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

3rrEdit

I've asked at the 3rr noticeboard for someone to have a look. --2A02:C7D:781C:A200:34B4:81EA:E4EA:3AA6 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Do so. Also explain why you do not sign in. Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

How WP:About:
Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.
Clearly, some editors are more equal than others. --Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:781C:A200:34B4:81EA:E4EA:3AA6 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am writing under a pseudonym. However several of the unsigned "editors" are your average Vandals: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There, of course, exist more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page" Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

HIAG‎Edit

Hi, could you clarify the addition of projects to me? For example, I was not able to find what positions the organisation held on LGTB rights, if any. Nor do I believe that it was accused of engaging in terroristic activities. I wonder if including projects such as "Terrorism" could prejudge the org. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

These WikiProjects are the ones covering Nazism, Neo-Nazism, and their offshoots, since the ideology is known for opposition to homosexuality and persecution of perceived homosexuals. To quote article Nazism: "After the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler promoted Himmler and the SS, who then zealously suppressed homosexuality by saying: "We must exterminate these people root and branch ... the homosexual must be eliminated".[1] In 1936, Himmler established the "Reichszentrale zur Bekämpfung der Homosexualität und Abtreibung" ("Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion").[2] The Nazi regime incarcerated some 100,000 homosexuals during the 1930s.[3] As concentration camp prisoners, homosexual men were forced to wear pink triangle badges.[4][5] Nazi ideology still viewed German men who were gay as a part of the Aryan master race, but the Nazi regime attempted to force them into sexual and social conformity. Homosexuals were viewed as failing in their duty to procreate and reproduce for the Aryan nation. Gay men who would not change or feign a change in their sexual orientation were sent to concentration camps under the "Extermination Through Work" campaign.[6]"

The Schutzstaffel were the ones enforcing the policy. Dimadick (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference plant was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Homosexualität und Staatsräson. Männlichkeit, Homophobie und Politik in Deutschland 1900-1945 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Holocaust: Gay activists press for German apology was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference international was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference homosexuals was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Neander, Biedron. "Homosexuals. A Separate Category of Prisoners". Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum. Retrieved August 10, 2013.

VandalismEdit

Please refrain from vandalizing Wikipedia as you did to Titus Julius Balbillus and Tiberius Julius Balbillus Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.236.179.140 (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

John HagelinEdit

No, I didn't compare pages. Sorry for the revert.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC))

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! deisenbe (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!Edit

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
  The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frau Holle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Germany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations...Edit

I know that you find it very important to copy large blocks of text to talk pages in Wikipedia, but given your statement that you've been at Wikipedia for 10 years, I found it inconcievable that someone with your experience would do so while deliberately and knowingly violating basic principles of Wikipedia policy. With edits like this (which is one of dozens like it, so it doesn't appear to be an isolated instance) you have copied a large block of text without explicit attribution. Instructions for how one is to properly attribute text, please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which contains information about why and how to properly attribute copied blocks of text. Its fine to do so, so long as you do so with proper attribution. Please do so in the future. Additionally, when you also copy references over, please be sure to use the template {{reftalk}} at the end of your post; it keeps the references directly after what you cite, so it doesn't confuse the talk page. Thanks! --Jayron32 18:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia applies to article space, not in every talk page or reply to questions. These pages are not available for reproduction of mirror websites.

It even specifies: "The correct attribution of text copied from one article to another... ". Dimadick (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Copyrights, which is the policy page that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is meant to support, and which is WMF (not locally developed) policy does not recognize the distinction between article pages and non-article pages. It applies to every part of Wikipedia. But, being that you have 10 years of experience at Wikipedia, you already knew that which is why it was a simple oversight on your part, and which is why you will provide proper attribution going forward, so thanks for doing that. --Jayron32 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
"you already knew that" No I didn't. I have read repeatedly Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but I haven't encountered Wikipedia:Copyrights since about 2010 and the text you cite is a more recent addition. (One reason why I privately complain about policy changes without the editors being notified.)Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King Features Syndicate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page König (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case openedEdit

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category "12th-century Byzantine theologians"Edit

Please see my proposal to rename Category:12th-century Byzantine theologians to 12th-century Eastern Orthodox theologians. Hugo999 (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Re-title "Enlightenment in Spain"Edit

Dear Dimadick, I have been working on WP articles on Spain and Latin America. I read your comment about problematic WP article title Enlightenment in Spain. I am coming to the discussion a few years after your comment, but I am in agreement with you and would like to see the change made. I think the discussion on the intellectual Enlightenment in Spain should be take the title of the current article, with the political history of the Spanish Bourbon monarchs updated to extend to the current era. All the best, Amuseclio (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio

In der MaurEdit

Hi! I'm confused as to why you added In der Maur to WikiProject Biography and under the class of "living=no". Are articles on families supposed to be categorized as biographies? And why is it non-living if there are members of the family, with articles on Wikipedia, who are alive today? Thanks! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Because the Royalty sub-project already includes families like the House of Habsburg and the House of Windsor. It does not seem to cover only biographies, unlike its parent project. Dimadick (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

Justt because a Pegsus appears in a work of fiction, it dose not mean that this work should be place in the category Pegsus. Same goes for Medusa or similar. Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a category for cultural depictions, as with any other eponymous category. The works of fiction are valid additions. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Clerici vagantes has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Clerici vagantes, 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) 08:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

PreciousEdit

Duck nobility

Thank you for quality articles beginning with Huey, Dewey, and Louie in 2001, Cyrus I in 2003, Isabel of Cambridge, Countess of Essex in 2006, Adelaide of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg in 2007, for beginning categories for births and deaths, for establishing thousands of article and category talk pages, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1959 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

1st century Roman womenEdit

Can you remove the super categories if you’re going to edit “Roman” into all the ‘’1st Century Women’’ categories please.Heliotom (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not certain which supercategories are there. This is a fairly recent category tree. Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It might be new , but it overs off as a sub category both the ‘’Roman Women’’ category, and the ‘’1st Century Romans’’ categories for instance.
with the old 1st century women it made sense to list those, but this more specific addition you’re adding makes them redundant. Heliotom (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

These categories are non-diffusing sub-categories of the Romans by century categories. Based on a decision a few years ago to make most women-related categories non-diffusing. Dimadick (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Surely then in cases like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plautia_Urgulanilla&diff=prev&oldid=848400933 you should adding the new category rather than amending the existing one?Heliotom (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You misread my reply. They are non-diffusing category of the Romans category, but serve as diffusing categories for the women by century tree. For more details, see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

NotificationEdit

Hi. I noticed your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 2#Category:Anatolian peoples. There is a related discussion here which might be of interest to you. Krakkos (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Epistle to TitusEdit

I provided reasoning in my edit, you did not provide reasoning in yours. Please do not revert my edit again unless you have a reason to do so.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohooh7 (talkcontribs) 22:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Ohooh7: Please see WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. You are expected to discuss suggested article improvements at the specific article's talk page to form consensus instead of reinstating your changes when they are reverted. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

historical negationismEdit

Why do you revert adding of more source for different perspective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.72.38.237 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Because it is a single line, and explains nothing but the negationism. If you want to add a perspective, elaborate. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Kindergarten CopEdit

Did you mean to take

out of this article? AFAICT she was in it. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, someone removed most of the article's categories and part of the introduction. I did not even check changes in the cast. Dimadick (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put her back. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palatias and Laurentia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Avidius CassiusEdit

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! MX () 23:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closedEdit

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
  2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
  4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
  5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

MatildaEdit

You've reverted three times now, so time to give it a rest. DrKay (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not revert. I added an additional source, discussing the Salian dynasty. Did you check the history section? Dimadick (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Your breach of 3RR is obvious and blatant. DrKay (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hrs for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

PluralsEdit

It looks like you are diffusing Category:Screenplays by writer. I have two concerns: 1.) you are using a different scheme for organizing them. Currently, it is by surname, but you are changing it to be by nationality. Cf. Category:Albums by artist (a listing by surname or the musical act's name) and Category:Albums by artist nationality. Every category (e.g. Category:R.E.M. albums) is in both schemes, not one or the other. 2.) You are making categories without plurals, such as Category:Screenplays by Australian writer rather than Category:Screenplays by Australian writers. Why is this? Please use {{ping}} if you respond here. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Simple enough. The diffusion was started about a month ago, by User:Tajotep, who created a few of the new categories. However he/she stopped working on the project without fully populating them. I decided to expand on his/her diffusion process and have followed his/her lead in naming the new categories.
The main benefit is that the screenwriters by nationality categories, can fit as subcategories to the underpopulated category tree fot Category:Works by nationality. The previous category effectively excluded screenplays from that category tree.
Unfortunately, I can only work on the category tree for a few hours each day. My PC is being repaired for the last week or so, and I can only access rentals for a 3 or 4 hours per day. Dimadick (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf and Dimadick: Thanks for following my legacy. I also worked on "Category:Films by producer nationality" and "Category:Films by director nationality" and I made the same mistakes as you (for example "Category:Screenplays by Australian writer" instead of "Category:Screenplays by Australian writers") because I found other categories with the same title (in singular). Then users warned me and they redirected it to the correct title (in plural). So the categories you created must been redirected to the title using the plural. --Tajotep (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Entering Heaven alive has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Entering Heaven alive, 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. regentspark (comment) 13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Split "German resistance to Nazism" into articles titled "German opposition to Nazism" and "German resistance to Hitler"?Edit

It has been suggested that German resistance to Nazism be split into articles titled German opposition to Nazism and German resistance to Hitler. You can join the discussion at Talk:German resistance to Nazism#Split proposal: "German opposition to Nazism" and "German resistance to Hitler". Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice work on Passenger to FrankfurtEdit

It may be the only article on an Agatha Christie novel with a section of Analysis, and what you wrote is interesting and pertinent. Nice work. Thanks, I was just trying for a character list (still in progress, I missed a name or two) and a plot summary that was more linked to the events of the novel. You raised the article a big notch. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. There are several books analysing Christie's works on googlebooks, and several more available in libraries. Dimadick (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

J W DunneEdit

Hi, Please be aware that J. W. Dunne had more English blood than Irish and his father was a British citizen and a career soldier in the British Army. He was only born in the same country as his father by coincidence, as his father was stationed there at the time - his older sibling was born in Scotland and his younger ones in England. Because of this all RS describe him as British. Therefore Wikipedia is obliged to do so too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

He precedes the division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Every Irishman was a British citizen at the time. Meanwhile you are removing him from the scientists and philosophers categories, which contradicts the main article. Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

He lived on long after independence and partition and remained wholly British. The land of your birth and your nationality are different things. A significant point here is that J.W. was born as a transient in an Army camp and not in any permanent home. I am sure you don't mean to claim that his older sister was Scottish just because she was born in Scotland. I will repeat Wikipedia's policy for you and link to the relevant page: reliable sources describe him as British therefore Wikipedia is expected to follow them. There is a guidance essay at WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom which is inconclusive on historical matters but does advise you to discuss your views rather than edit war. See also WP:BRD. You also enjoin me to "read the article" which, if you did, so, you would see that it states that he is English. There is also a discussion on its talk page, which you will need to engage in and gain consensus for any change. Meanwhile, the category in question should align with the article and not be unilaterally changed based on one editor's point of view. Would you be prepared to reconsider your change while you seek wider input for a review of the consensus? But I take your point about the other categories, I didn't notice you had added them, that was my mistake and I apologise for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"reliable sources describe him as British therefore Wikipedia is expected to follow them" You seem to be under a misconception. I did not remove the "British" description from the category. I removed the description of him as "English". Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
You replaced one mistake with another. The whole set of categories there is a self-contradictory mess. I have no problem with you removing inappropriate ones, but they need to be replaced with the correct ones. Would you be prepared to reconsider your change while you seek wider input for a review of the consensus? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC) [updated 16:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)]
"review of the consensus" What consensus? For the time being, the category has not attracted the attention of anyone but you and me. To reach a true consensus we would need input from several people interested in British/Irish history. Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The consensus established by the fact that this has stood for nearly two years without question. I agree that it is not a strong consensus (and might even be challenged as such) but it is the status quo and needs a stronger consensus formed if any change is challenged, as I have just done. I also agree that a strong consensus needs more participants, hence my suggestion that you seek a wider input to it. Would you be prepared to reconsider your change while you seek wider input for a review of the (currently weak) consensus? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note also that an engineer and a scientist are different. Engineers design and make things, scientists discover how nature works. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

No science has little to do with "nature", it concerns research. The main category here is Category:Science occupations.Dimadick (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Either way, science are related but are different. This is better explained at Aerospace engineering#In popular culture with references. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No offense, but the term scientist includes the social sciences.Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
First you argue that he was a scientist because he was an engineer. When that proves false you change your tune and instead suggest that he was a social scientist. That is equally false; he was a philosopher and parapsychologist, neither of which is included among the social sciences. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"proves false" How was it proven wrong? By a pop culture reference that is unrelated to the main article? And no I didn't call him a social scientist (he clearly wasn't), just pointing that science is not limited to nature study. Dimadick (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

So, Fnlayson agrees with me that an engineer is not a scientist. You are not seeking any other justification for your edit. Do you have any further objections to my reverting it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't changed the category for some time right? I thought you had already changed it. Dimadick (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You changed Category:J. W. Dunne. Do you have any further objections to my reverting that edit? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep reverting, instead of simply editing the category? That is what I am opposed to. You are removing the other categories as well. Dimadick (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I did edit the category, see here and here. Please get your facts right, especially when criticising other editors. Your latest edit was to add a single category and needs fully undoing. That is precisely what the reversion tool is for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Foo in fictionEdit

Multi-category CfR opened here. I'm happy to add more categories if you have any suggestions. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Damn, that was quick! :) Thanks for the support! DonIago (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think that a number of categories remain underpopulated because their scope is unclear. I think "about" makes the scope clearer. Dimadick (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Ironically I'm more concerned about categories being overpopulated because well-meaning editors throw even the most incidental occurrence of foo into a "foo in fiction"-style category. Sounds like we may be approaching this from opposite ends of the spectrum, but hey, still reaching the same middle ground! DonIago (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

please stopEdit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:1960s_in_Australia_by_city&action=edit - the correct project tags is Australia and Years - it has nothing to do with Adleaide JarrahTree 06:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am simply copying the tag in the extant categories. I haven't had the time to work on the parent categories yet. Dimadick (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please dont - your added items are not needed. Please dont copy what you find without knowledge of what you are doing. It was wrong JarrahTree 06:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

classic WP:AGF on your part - I ask you to hold on or try something, and there you go

- almost all the Australian articles about cities do not have 'cities' project tags or your trademark class= importance= addition. I am assuming bad faith. Please do not copy without looking or checking - cities in australia - has nothing to do with adelaide. JarrahTree 06:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"all the Australian articles about cities do not have 'cities' project tags" They should. The Project covers cities around the world.

Again, give me some time to actually work on the categories. Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

we have over the years seen you blocked for lack of edit summaries, and in some sequences - whole set of edits reverted by people in disbelief at some of your more astonishing word associations which proved disconnected from actual meanings. I have tried a number of times to pay you compliments for the majority of your edits (seeing so few editors understanding the importance of assessment and project tag placement) - to have simply copied what you find is a very bad sign of not actually checking what you are doing. I am able to understand your general intention, it is disappointing to see that you are into Australian subject areas - as your mistakes sometimes create more grief than you obviously great work in the larger scale of things. As some familiar with the problem state - it is better to accept some of your more crazy edits and live with them - in the face of the larger amount of ok edits. JarrahTree 07:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"it is disappointing to see that you are into Australian subject areas"

I have been working on-and-off on Austalian subject areas for years, including crimes in Australia, missing person cases, Australian literature, and Australian cinema. Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Missing the point - the mistakes in some cases are never caught until long after as you edit in areas with very low level watchers. I think the problem as I perceive it - is there seems little interest in actually learning why or how the mistakes occurred and how you can improve/change/learn. If there was interest in where or why, rather than simply stating your intention to add the city project to everything you find the word city in the whole Australian project. In other words, from past experience is a temptation to argue or simply assert your general editing tendency rather than show signs of interest in others points of view. A pity, but hey this is wikipedia. JarrahTree 07:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The "other points of view" is usually to leave the articles uncategorized or unreviewed. I could have a field day with what I find wrong in your edits in category space. Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

category space ? wow - thats ripe!
hahahaha - thats it you havent changed all these years - have fun. JarrahTree 07:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
So thank you for your work in the Australian project your work is appreciated. as for the rest, pity you still have the element of combatant all this time in to your massive positive contribution. JarrahTree 08:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
If I didn't have it, I would have quit Wikipedia years ago. There are many people willing to step all over you in this website. Dimadick (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That is really sad, you have a large volume of good contributions to the project, and it seems real shame that you feel the need to be adverserial. I simply think your inability to be more negotiable regarding simple issues is unfortunate. It goes a long way to be more conciliatory than aggressive. JarrahTree 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rebecca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laban (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

WishEdit

Hello. Help copy edit, improvements, add archive link for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.214.50.24 (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I occassionally work on articles related to clothing and the fashion industry, but not on models. I am not certain how I can improve that article. Dimadick (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary EditionEdit

An article that you have been involved in editing—Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Enter Movie (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


plantsEdit

I know you like to bite first and talk after, now, please do not start adding Biology to plant/country combinations.

we all make mistakes - I accidentally added tourism, and have removed it - so much for tagging projects.

Please have a bit of WP:AGF and not start adding biology after being asked to not do so.

Thanks. I really appreciate your consideration. JarrahTree 10:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"where the hell tourism got into that I have no idea."

That is what I don't get also. Did you read my editing comment on Category talk:Endemic flora of Sudan?: ""Flora" as in "plants". Not much relation to tourism. ":

You were the one who added the "Tourism" WikiProject in the first place, on 15 October 2018. I considered it one of your errors and simply added the projects interested in flora. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Capitoline Wolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Xerxes IEdit

Sorry, I didn't mean to revert your edit, just the "Iran" that an IP added next to "Persia" just before your add. Khruner (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And I was wondering why you thought I was an Egyptian nationalist. Dimadick (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflictsEdit

We're stepping on each other's toes working on Thriller simultaneously, so I'll back off and let you do your stuff for a while. Godspeed! Popcornduff (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The article had some strange sentence structure and mentioned specific neighborrhoods in Los Angeles who happen to habe their own article.

Out of curiosity, if Vestron Video had the home video distribution rights, does corporate successor Lionsgate Home Entertainment still have rights to it? Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No idea. I haven't read sources about that yet. The existing source for those looks less than ideal. The article is currently lacking good information about how the video was broadcast and distributed. Popcornduff (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

removed your voteEdit

Hi, sorry if I removed your vote on Talk:Siege of Singara‎. I suppose it was a fat finger, I didn't see it. T8612 (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ComicsgateEdit

With this edit here, you characterized a correction (i.e., the removal of a word, "liberalism", which did not appear in the indicated source, and reworking the misleading sentence into one containing a direct quotation -- with both of those prominently listed in the edit summary) as "vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:300:3F7F:3C0C:DACE:5363:D59D (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of pictures on the article "Age of Revolution"Edit

I don't understand why you keep tagging those pictures as vandalism. Please explain. Have a good day. Nashhinton (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't care about the pictures. The text that keeps being restored in the article along with the pictures says: "these peopepl are the pine jb jbqej j jejh fj jb jr hjb jw rjhb4 ghreh bh hbvhjr 2lh4". Does that make sense to you? Dimadick (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fennoscandia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archaean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:17th-century Dukes of Normandy has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:17th-century Dukes of Normandy, 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitic canardEdit

That was quite the whirlwind tour of moves. It first popped up on Huggle as a new article. I did a db-g10. A bit of an edit war over the speedy, then it was moved a few times. Sort of seemed to have disappeared. Maybe just redirected back to Antisemitic canard which was moved. Thanks for the move fixes! Cheers Jim1138 talk 09:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The editor who moved it declared all antisemitic canards to be true and the Holocaust to be a hoax. This is not the kind of editor we need in here. I was reminded of my teenage years when the "cool" kids in my class were reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and treating it as a factual account. I don't like that sort of conspiracy theory-thinking. Dimadick (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProjects on Promised LandEdit

Why did you add WikiProject African diaspora and WikiProject Death to the Promised Land article? Debresser (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article before asking me? Here is how it describes the Promised Land:

Seems a very far connection. Certainly for WikiProject Death, which I will remove. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crommyonian Sow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wild pig (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dimadick. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dimadick. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:17th-century Jacobite pretenders has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:17th-century Jacobite pretenders, 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. DrKay (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Jacobite pretenders has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:19th-century Jacobite pretenders, 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. DrKay (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:20th-century Jacobite pretenders has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:20th-century Jacobite pretenders, 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. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:21st-century Jacobite pretenders has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:21st-century Jacobite pretenders, 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. DrKay (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:16th-century Lords Protector of England has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:16th-century Lords Protector of England, 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. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

CategoryEdit

Hi there, I saw that you commented here (Category:Far-right politics in Brazil) and I noticed that after your comment, Hmains started to arbitrarily add this category in many articles so it became more populated. I reverted him for now but I’m afraid he will revert me back. Since I’m not registered could you please raise this matter there? Thanks. --49.195.206.82 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

He/she is supposed to populate categories with related articles. It is unclear to me what the category's scope is. Dimadick (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018Edit

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

 
The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - wolf 09:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! - wolf 09:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Passengers of the RMS TitanicEdit

I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks –dlthewave 21:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring againEdit

You've reverted 3 times within 24 hours at Category:20th-century Irish monarchs. You'll end up on AN3 again if you don't stop. DrKay (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You ignore sourced articles and pretend that Ireland was a real republic prior to 1949. You haven't added any source that the monarchy ended in 1936. The main article even specifies: "The state did not officially describe itself as the Republic of Ireland until 1949". Dimadick (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean that phrase that I wrote[3]. Thanks for pointing out my own edit to me, but I am aware of it. You say I haven't added a source: I can demonstrably prove otherwise: me adding a source that states the President of Ireland was the head of state. DrKay (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD:Edit

Dear @Dimadick:, the article Christian persecution complex]], which you have contributed significantly, is listed for deletion. Have your say here, if you wish. Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ecce homo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthropos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!Edit

  Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Delusions and C P ComplexEdit

Hi, I am sorry to revert your addition Category:Delusions at CP Complex. CPC is not a medical term and placing a wrong category, might misinform readers. Your other edits were pretty useful though! Cheers! Cinadon36 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is named after persecutory delusion. And I created category delusions to include a wide variety of articles on delusions, not just medical terms. The so-called Jerusalem syndrome has not been accepted by psychiatrists, but is commonplace in the city it was named after. Dimadick (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sasanian monarchsEdit

Can you stop adding categories which make no sense whatsoever? The Sasanian Empire fell in 651, there weren't any Sasanian monarchs after that. Yet you keep adding Sasanian monarch categories to princes who never reigned. You even created Category:8th-century Sasanian monarchs, sigh.. Also saying that something contradicts a Wikipedia article (List of shahanshahs of the Sasanian Empire) is not a valid argument at all. Everyone can change Wikipedia stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The articles mention them ruling a subordinate government under the Tang, and still leading their own army until 710. This is the Sasanids we are tracking, not Iran as a whole. Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Leading an (Turkic/Chinese) army doesn't make you a monarch. They were princes at best, not monarchs. The Sasanian Empire fell in 651. I'm gonna revert the articles back to their original state. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Leading your own court and maintaining a government does. Dimadick (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the idea of a monarch. The last Sasanian king was Yazdegerd III, look it up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The articles keep contradicting you. Dimadick (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I bet they do, it's not like I created/expanded over half of them. So.. the last Sasanian king wasn't Yazdegerd III? Alright mate, the Roman republic didn't fall in 27 BC. See what I'm doing? Making stuff up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:8th-century Sasanian monarchs has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:8th-century Sasanian monarchs, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Indonesian articlesEdit

Where there is already a large number of items that could have geography added - and only a selected item gets added - the undue emphasis really is not needed - please do not add further 'geography' project tags to Indonesian items without at least discussing further at the project page - thank you JarrahTree 11:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Haven't you noticed? There are many additions to the Project in recent months. I will revert your changes. Dimadick (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not that constitutes WP:EDITWARING - and I will ask you to please reconsider - there is not need for geography to be added to the governmental or regions of Indonesia - please consider your editing as possibly adding a project that is not required. JarrahTree 11:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If you do not wish to have a discussion here, or at the Indonesian project - perhaps we can ask a third party to review the issue JarrahTree 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And, I really need to see a very well explained reasoning from you, with very good examples and policies and procesdures as to why any one country range of articles really need geography tags added, I do really require a good explanation that show that all other country projects have geography actually added to their similar article series. For a basic sense of WP:AGF to even continue the conversation. Thank you for your consideration. JarrahTree 11:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary to explain all that. Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography already covers "Country subdivisions", with articles such as Chiquimula Department and New York (state). Dimadick (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

One small problem, if you think that gives you license to go in to every country with that as a defence - is I am sure there are more countries than you can count - that do not have the added project to their divisions - and like your very early edit history - adding project pages is not a freely associating addition of every subject under the sun that can be added as a project - really, I have no problem with most of your adding project pages - but to think that every country on the planet, by your argument needs to have geography added to country subdivisions, I believe is unnecessary, and really ditruptive. I always believe you have made an amazing contribution to wikipedia well beyond what the average person might even understand or even contemplate - in making sure that a wide range of otherwise un-tagged talk pages are 'populated', I simply have problems where already tagged country subdivisions - really dont need extra projects - if only anyone was interested (and it seems no one is anymore) - we might consider - if a country subdivision is already tagged with the country and or subdivision - it really doesnt need another project. Consider the size of the projects - the assessment problem surely is far more pressing than another project being added. JarrahTree 12:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no assessment problem. Despite a large number of recent additions, WikiProject Geography has 7 unassessed articles in total. Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Your understanding of the five threads I have tried to introduce, very poorly on my part, my apologies, clearly is being answered as a misunderstanding.

your over all project tagging is amazing and to be commended
your assumed intention to add 'geography' project tags to every country project on the planet to appease your interpretation of the geography tag - I believe is misguided - as if you do it for one country it is creating an inconsistency - and as a consequence should be discouraged unless you are doing every one of the country projects on wikipedia - otherwise the 'undue' aspect of application of something raises the question - why one country - why not all - what is the difference between the projects/countries?
you have in the past regularly been reverted for hundreds of edits that showed a misunderstanding of meanings of words - why should the geography project actually be added when there are already country project and in most cases subdivision tags added? there is simply nothing in wikipedia that says 'x project' must be added - surely it is really in the end your interpretation as to whether it is suitable to add it. Why not just leave the project tag for the country as the sufficient project tag?
the comment about assessment - is that many projects are added but do not have assessments made - which 'breaks down' the whole point of having project tags - if the assessments are not actually down - my apology I was not specifically referring to geography as an under-assessed project - but the whole project of wikipedia - has a massive backlog of unassessed articles
you clearly have stated as time as passed a need to maintain an aggressive and assertive stance on your editing. I have no intention of dealing with your problems - if you want to add geography project to every country project on wikipedia, so be it - I simply am stating my point of view (as I have a few times in the years we have interacted) that I believe as a 10 year plus editor on the Indonesian project - I see no reason to see why - every country division in Indonesia needs to be part of the geography project,

considering the nature of the geography category, geography project and the descendant projects - the extra layer of project tags in the Indonesian project really doesnt need the addition. But hey, its wikipedia. cheers JarrahTree 13:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"why should the geography project actually be added when there are already country project and in most cases subdivision tags added? "

Because several of the country projects are either defunct, moribund, or haven't had any new additions in years, while general-scope Projects seem to be far more active? Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not a good answer - and doesnt really explain adequately why you should wander into an active project like Indonesia and add geography project project tags, in my mind it is an unhelpful not particularly useful redundant addition, but thats my opinion! anyways my part of the planet is about or already asleep - hey - cheers - enjoy - vive la difference to our opinions - it must be years now that we beg to differ - and enjoy yourself and keep the faith - gnight. JarrahTree 13:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:New Century Foundation has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:New Century Foundation, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

CornEdit

Hi Dimadick - thank you for you response. Please see my response here. Thanks...

Christmas filmsEdit

I checked List of Christmas films and neither Die Hard movie has any sourcing to justify their inclusion there. I will be paring that article down if sourcing is not provided in the future. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your rationale for adding Die Hard. Obviously using an uncited entry in a list article would fall afoul of WP:CIRCULAR in any case. DonIago (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
We already have sources calling it one of the best Christmas films. I added a reference to the list. Dimadick (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Saw that. Sorry about the oversight. Thanks for adding in the ref. DonIago (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Whitewashing in FilmEdit

Hello Dimadick, you recently reverted additions I made on the page Whitewashing in film. These additions are valid and removing them is unjustified. I went ahead and undid your inappropriate reversion; if you believe the additions I added are invalid, feel free to respond to me here or on my talk page with sources that support your assertions. I am here to contribute and collaborate, and your reversion is disruptive. Please do not remove these appropriate additions again - I'm not interested in being a part of an Edit war. Thanks. Walterblue222 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Additions should be backed by sources, and you added none. Dimadick (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What sort of sources do you want? Confirmation that Eddie Murphy, Michael Jackson and Samuel L. Jackson aren't "white"? Confirmation that they appeared in the films listed? This is common knowledge, do you disagree with these statements? ...I'll see about adding more sources when I have some spare time I guess, unless you feel like adding them for me. Walterblue222 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Sources that confirm that these were cases of color-blind casting and that they are relevant to the main topic of the article. We can not produce OR here, we need sources making the connections for us. Dimadick (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't specifically state that these were cases of color-blind casting, but rather that the statement "one rarely sees, for example, an African American, Latino, or Asian actor cast as a white character" is verifiably false, as displayed in the examples given. These weren't color-blind castings in my opinion, they were specifically black-washed roles (like "white-washed", except there isn't a page for "black-washed", it seems because of anti-white/pro-black racism)... Walterblue222 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Renaming of categoriesEdit

Please see my proposals to rename Category:Computer-related introductions in the 20th-century to Category:Computer-related introductions in the 20th century and similar categories. Hugo999 (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Germanic peoplesEdit

@Andrew Lancaster: In what universe does what is convention within Wikipedia trump the content of an academic publication by world-class scholars? When you revert this back to another term (in this case Chalcedonian Christianity) as opposed to the original text of Catholicism, you are claiming that a scholar like Walter Pohl must not know what he meant by using the expression Catholicism. If that is the case then everything related to that portion of the Wiki-article comes into question since YOU seem to know better than Pohl. Shall we start deleting text using Wikipedia as authoritative over the work of such scholars? Obviously he used the term Catholicism with the knowledge beforehand about the the fourth ecumenical council of the Christian Church (held at Chalcedon in 451). It does not matter what YOU think about this. If additional contextualization about Chalcedonian Christianity needs to be brought into the conversation, then add a footnote to Catholicism in this case with discussion from other high-quality scholars. Do not just outright change the use of the word Catholicism this way as it no longer aligns with the cited text. Doing so results to disingenuous editing and might even constitute copyright violations as that is NOT what the cited text states.--Obenritter (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"In what universe does what is convention within Wikipedia trump the content of an academic publication by world-class scholars?"

In the universe where you learn to avoid anachronisms. Your "world-class scholars" (assuming they have any credentials) are covering the Early Middle Ages, when "Catholicism" translated to the State church of the Roman Empire.

Catholicity currently covers the entire history of the term, and Catholicism (disambiguation) covers the many different meanings of "Catholicism" in Christianity. The 2017 idea to turn "Catholicism" to a redirect to the Catholicity belonged to User:Yunshui, and has caused quite a number of problems with disambiguations and wrong links.

And I think your assumption about what Pohl means fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Where is the proof that the Catholic Church existed in the Early Middle Ages? Where in the source the mention of Ecumenical councils and that these Germanics were still in communion with the Eastern churches? Dimadick (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Dimadick you are on 3R on the Germanic Peoples article for a word preference. Let us please break that cycle. Can I please request that you now post your rationale on the talk page of that article, in a new section? Some points to consider:
  • The article in question is not a specialist article on branching of christianity, and in the sources relevant to Germanic peoples, and the history of Europe generally, Catholic-derived terms are surely the norm by far for the western European Rome-centred "mainstream" church?
  • To the extent that Catholicism is an anachronism here so is Chalcedonism, surely? Indeed, no one in this period was speaking English to being with. What we are looking for is a term used by the relevant historians, and widely understood.
  • Whatever words specialists in the history of christianity use, "catholicism" is not a "wrong" word, and it is used in most academic sources for the creed in question. (For example the one Clovis supposedly joined.) Do you disagree?
Do you disagree with any of these three points?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started the talk page section on the article talk page. Will you please address these points and any others there?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Dimadick wrote: "(assuming they have any credentials)"
Let's see about your FAILS VERIFIABILITY claim--I will just select one for instance: Walter Pohl who has his own Wiki article. Also here is his page at the University of Vienna: Professor Walter Pohl Look at that exhaustive list of publications and then restate your claims again. I haven't the time for such antagonistic drivel. Your efforts don't seem constructive in any way as they do not correspond to the claims of the text. Also, where is your irrefutable proof that this claim of Chalcedonianism trumps scholarship over the use of the term Catholic? I've seen nothing other than your opinion. As far as I am concerned, you have nothing to stand on whatsoever. --Obenritter (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Since my name's getting dragged through the mud here, just wanted to point out that a) I moved Catholicism to Catholicism (term), not Catholicity, per the discussion here (which I did not close, but only implemented) and b) the subsequent move to Catholicity implemented as the result of this discussion, which I wasn't involved with at all. Neither move was "my idea", I couldn't give the proverbial rodent's posterior what the article gets called. Yunshui  07:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits about LuciferEdit

Hello, I noticed your recent edits concerning Lucifer. I removed the "Offspring" category, since it is clearly OR. But what I would like to talk about is, that exactly is the difference between Category "Satan" and "Lucifer"? The latter another category you creted today. I think "Satan" already covers the most important aspects of Lucifer. (I know that some concider Lucifer to be a positive figure and Satan not and similar ideas, however such theories must be supported by reliable academic source not only by OR.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This is about the mythological character in the context of Roman mythology, not about Satan. Please read the article. Dimadick (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Lucifer is a Christian based figure, not a Roman based. Please to not confuse fiction with fact. Provide reliable sources and please reach a consens for your edits. Otherwise I would an admin decide next.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Instead of making threats, read the article itself which states that he is a Roman mythological character. With sources:

  • In classical mythology, Lucifer ("light-bringer" in Latin) was the name of the planet Venus, though it was often personified as a male figure bearing a torch. The Greek name for this planet was variously Phosphoros (also meaning "light-bringer") or Heosphoros (meaning "dawn-bringer").[1] Lucifer was said to be "the fabled son of Aurora[2] and Cephalus, and father of Ceyx". He was often presented in poetry as heralding the dawn.[1]
  • The second century Roman mythographer Pseudo-Hyginus said of the planet:[3]
"The fourth star is that of Venus, Luciferus by name. Some say it is Juno's. In many tales it is recorded that it is called Hesperus, too. It seems to be the largest of all stars. Some have said it represents the son of Aurora and Cephalus, who surpassed many in beauty, so that he even vied with Venus, and, as Eratosthenes says, for this reason it is called the star of Venus. It is visible both at dawn and sunset, and so properly has been called both Luciferus and Hesperus."
"Aurora, watchful in the reddening dawn, threw wide her crimson doors and rose-filled halls; the Stellae took flight, in marshaled order set by Lucifer who left his station last."
  • In the classical Roman period, Lucifer was not typically regarded as a deity and had few, if any, myths,[1] though the planet was associated with various deities and often poetically personified. Cicero pointed out that "You say that Sol the Sun and Luna the Moon are deities, and the Greeks identify the former with Apollo and the latter with Diana. But if Luna (the Moon) is a goddess, then Lucifer (the Morning-Star) also and the rest of the Wandering Stars (Stellae Errantes) will have to be counted gods; and if so, then the Fixed Stars (Stellae Inerrantes) as well."[5]

Nothing to do with Christianity. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

And nothing to do with Lucifer. You fail to distinguish Lucifer and Phosphorus. However, it seems we will not find a solution together since you insist that you are right and I what I am right. Therefore, I suggest to let an admin decide. You are making several controversial categories, I could not clean up, due to your speed, many of them only concluding one to three articles. Further you added your new Category to both Satan and Fallen angel, but simultatnously state, that they are not related to Christianity. I guess I do not need to point out the contradictions here. Regarding your source: The lead states "Lucifer, (Latin: Lightbearer)Greek Phosphorus, or Eosphoros, in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn. In Christian times Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall. It was thus used by John Milton (1608–74) in Paradise Lost, and the idea underlies the proverbial phrase “as proud as Lucifer" Clearly Christian. Only the translation is not related to Christianity. But just because Lucifer is translated as Phosphorus, doesn't mean they are the same. Just let an Admin decide.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"Further you added your new Category to both Satan and Fallen angel, but simultatnously state, that they are not related to Christianity."

I added whatever categories were already present in the main article. If you feel some parent categories are irrelevant to the content, please remove them.

"But just because Lucifer is translated as Phosphorus, doesn't mean they are the same."

The Greek and Roman figures are mere equivalents/traslations, just as Eos and Aurora (mythology) are essentially the same goddess in two different contexts.

And the lead of the article fails to properly summarize its content, both concerning Classical mythology and concerning Christianity. Christians did not equate Lucifer with Satan, but with Jesus, and with the Babylonian kings. :

  • "However, unlike the English word, the Latin word was not used exclusively in this way and was applied to others also, including Jesus: the Latin (Vulgate) text of Revelation 22:16 (where English translations refer to Jesus as "the bright morning star") has stella matutina, not lucifer, but the term lucifer is applied to Jesus in the Easter Exultet and in a hymn by Hilary of Poitiers that contains the phrase: "Tu verus mundi lucifer" (You are the true light bringer of the world).[6]"
  • "John Calvin said: "The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians."[7] Martin Luther also considered it a gross error to refer this verse to the devil.[8] Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
already suspected yuo think this way. It is NOT about your Biblical exegesis. Fact is, that traditionally, Lucifer is a fallenangel or demon, and obviously,prrofs you yourself know that. This makes it close to vandalism. Wikipedia is NOT about words, but about concepts. I am well aware of that Jesus is called "Lucifer" in the Bible, but what doesn't mean you can merge them on your own. Your further stated, that your edits are agains the article by stating, that the lead does not reflect your edits. BUt I have another idea. Since it seems your focus here is about "Phosphorus", move the Category to Phosphorus, remove the fallen angel category, than add Lucifer and Satan. But "Lucifer" is something entirely else, even they might have the same name.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
"that the lead does not reflect your edits." You are misreading this. I stated that the lead the article does not properly summarize the body of the article. Which is a violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:
  • "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
    • Lucifer is not Satan, not a fallen angel, not a demon. He is simply a mythological deity which name was appropriated in Christian texts. Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Then you should have added a disambiguation page for Lucifer such as Lucifer (Fallen angel in Christianity) and Lucifer (Greek deity) and adding only the Greek Pantheon into the group. But you added Lucifer to "fallen angels". I objected that above, but you only repeat that I already refused, because it is missing the point.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe that WP:INUNIVERSE is apt guidance here, except it does not quite address the question already raised: WHICH UNIVERSE? Since "Lucifer" is many things to many people, a crossover character if you will, this dispute will not be resolved by stubborn adherence to "yes he is, no he isn't". So I suggest to move to Talk:Lucifer as this is the topic at hand, and we need to discuss just how many different identities can be imputed here, or if we need to fork Lucifer into Lucifer in Christianity and Lucifer in Greek mythology and Lucifer in Islam ad nauseam. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Come again? Where do you see an Islam section in the article? Dimadick (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this whole bit some kind of exercise in Frege's puzzles? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
No, just a standard category for a mythological figure. And I am still puzzled why you think that Lucifer is an Islamic figure. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ a b c "Lucifer" in Encyclopaedia Britannica]
  2. ^ Auffarth, Christoph; Stuckenbruck, Loren T., eds. (2004). The Fall of the Angels. Leiden: BRILL. p. 62. ISBN 978-9-00412668-8.
  3. ^ Astronomica 2. 4 (trans. Grant)
  4. ^ Metamorphoses 2. 112 ff (trans. Melville)
  5. ^ Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3. 19
  6. ^ Francis Andrew March, Latin Hymns with English Notes (Douglass Series of Christian Greek and Latin Writers), vol. 1, p. 218: "Lucifer: God – Christ is here addressed as the true light bringer, in distinction from the planet Venus. Such etymological turns are common in the hymns. [...] This description of the King of Babylon was applied by Tertullian and others to Satan, and the mistake has led to the present meanings of Lucifer. See Webster's Dictionary."
  7. ^ Calvin, John (2007). Commentary on Isaiah. I:404. Translated by John King. Charleston, S.C.: Forgotten Books.
  8. ^ Ridderbos, Jan (1985). The Bible Student’s Commentary: Isaiah. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency. p. 142.

Dispute ResolutionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC) as stated before, I would like to invite somebody else for this dispute. Especially, since your controversial edits are many. Before it escalates, I would like to tag us there.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to put in some words for this dispute, but it would be preferable if we could identify a centralized location for the discussion, rather than this user talk page and ANI, which are both inappropriate. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Where would you suggest? Dimadick (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to have a nice RFC on categories in general and how they are routinely abused and abandoned in articles, vis-a-vis the requirements to have them correspond to a reliable source as well as something in the article explaining why it belongs to each category - WP:CATV. It seems they get this going and coming: from people who delete prose from articles and leave dangling categories, as well as people who tag articles with tangential categories without bothering to write the necessary explanation. We've got a case of the latter here. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


SorryEdit

I wanted to revert a vandalism on List of children of Ramesses II, but I've accidentally reverted your edit instead, sorry! Khruner (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, I had not noticed the list of children yet. Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Year of releaseEdit

We should not list the film by potential years of release. For example, if people are just browsing the films by year category, you would think that its one or the other without reading the article. As its not clear and distinct, we should not just play guessing games with categories. If we can not confirm the information, I do not think it should be included. I have opened a discussion on it on the films talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

We have many films in years by categories with one two or three different years of release. Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

4 and 10Edit

Could you explain your placing 4 and 10 in Category:Cross symbols? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't read the article cross, have you? :

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 17 June 2015. Retrieved 17 June 2015.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)

Category:Measles outbreaksEdit

I'm not looking to revert, but we generally do not have paragraphs containing that level of detail on category pages. The category page is just an index which, ideally, the reader never passes through for more than a moment. bd2412 T 17:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Category pages need scope definitions, explaining what belongs in them or not. Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Categorization: Defining characteristicEdit

See Wikipedia:Defining. Editor2020 (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

So what? I have read it. That is why I insist on as many categories as possible. There is never only one defining characteristic. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

SPIEdit

Category:21st-century heads of state of France has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:21st-century heads of state of France, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — JFG talk 08:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!OlJa 19:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

List of tombs of the Doges of VeniceEdit

I was a tad surprised to see we don't have this. It would make a nice list article, & not to hard to do (apart from the earliest). A simpler version of the Papal one, maybe. Loads are in the same few churches. Is this the sort of thing you do? If not you, then who might like it? Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I have created a few categories about graveyards and ancient funeral monuments, but I haven't started a list from scratch. I am not certain which sources should be used. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The biographies, or sources on the key churches, should provide most of it. Actually starting a commons category would be a good start/alternative - see eg commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/:Category:Interior of Santi Giovanni e Paolo (Venice) - Tombs with sub-cats of over a dozen. of course we have List of Doges of Venice - I'd imagine surviving tombs don't start until say the 13th century. Enrico Dandolo, d. 1205, is rather an outlier. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
We have information and a photo on Dandolo's tomb, but not an actual article: "Dandolo died in 1205 and was buried in June in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.[1] He was the only person to be buried there.[2] In the 19th century an Italian restoration team placed a cenotaph marker near the probable location, which is still visible today. The marker is frequently mistaken by tourists as being a medieval marker of the actual tomb of the doge. The real tomb was destroyed by the Ottomans after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 and subsequent conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque.[1][3]Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I can't recall seeing actual articles on any of them, although many are major works. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ a b Okey. Venice and its Story. p. 167.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference :6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Gallo, Rudolfo (1927). "La tomba di Enrico Dandolo in Santa Sofia a Constantinople". Rivista mensile della Citta di Venezia. 6: 270–83.

WikiProjectsEdit

How do you determine the "importance" of any given article to a WikiProject? In the Talk:I Am a Man!, you ranked the article as "low" importance for 11 WikiProjects here and here. Mitchumch (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Importance: "obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)"

This is not a major topic, and has a limited geographic scope (the United States). Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The topic Interracial marriage in the United States is "obscure"?
  • The Wikipedia page you referenced above states "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last updated 30 November 2005." That page does not dictate the approach used to determine the "importance" parameter. That essay was used to determine whether an article should be created on Wikipedia.
  • Please use Wikipedia:Content assessment § Importance assessment to determine the value for the parameter "importance" of any WikiProject.
  • not a major topic, and has a limited geographic scope: The "Importance assessment" link I provided above states "Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope." I am a member of the WikiProject Civil Rights Movement. Both articles "I Am a Man!" and "Interracial marriage in the United States" are not "obscure" topics for that project. Especially, the topic on interracial marriage. Mitchumch (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


While you are free to re-rate them, keep in mind why they seem rather low in importance. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria:

  • "Top: Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia".
  • "High:Subject contributes a depth of knowledge"
  • "Mid:Subject fills in more minor details"
  • "Low: Subject is mainly of specialist interest."
  • "Bottom (Optional): Subject has no real significance to the project."
  • "No (Optional): Subject is a disambiguation or redirect page, residing in article space."

The main article on Civil rights movement does not cover either the political slogan, nor any connection to interracial marriage.Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject priority assessments states" If importance values are applied within a specific project, these only reflect the perceived importance to that project. An article judged to be "Top-Importance" in one WikiProject's context may be only "Low-Importance" for another WikiProject."
WP:Reliable sources determine their link to the civil rights movement, not content on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia states, "Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source) as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased."
Please consider relying upon active members of WikiProjects to determine the "importance" parameter. Mitchumch (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not. If I waited on "active members" to rate articles, there would be an even greater assessment backlog. Have you even checked Category:Wikipedia assessment backlog? Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You made an inaccurate assessment in the WikiProject I am active in. That parameter is a tool for WikiProjects. You are only causing more work for active members like me to do. I had to revert your edits. You need to have some knowledge of the topic in reliable sources to make that determination. You only relied upon incomplete, possibly inaccurate and biased, articles to make that determination. Mitchumch (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Articles are rated, and often deleted, based on current content. Not on what sources may be out there. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The parameter "class" is rated based on the state of the article. That parameter could more easily be done by any one. The parameter "importance" is not as easy to rate as the "class" parameter, because it's based on reliable sources.
WikiProjects may develop their own standards to assist in assessment. See WP:MEDIMP as an example. The WikiProject Civil Rights Movement was created in February 2018. That project is still being developed and the "importance" guidelines have yet to be written. Mitchumch (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Time travel from CornwallEdit

I don't think I've ever before had a thankyou notification for an edit[4] I made nine years ago, like that you just gave me for banner-tagging Category talk:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for constituencies in Cornwall.

But thank you. It was kind, and feels good.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I am often pleasantly surprised by your work on British-related categories, with even minor categories propely bannered and easy to locate. You are doing a great job. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!
I just wish that the island of Britain had a stable administrative geography. Then I could have implemented something like WP:IECATNAVP, whose resulting {{AllIrelandByCountyCatNav}} can be seen on any by-county Irish category, e.g. Category:People from County Sligo or Category:Religious buildings and structures in County Mayo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Second Swedish Crusade has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Second Swedish Crusade, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

either one or allEdit

please note that asserting one item in australian place is a city is debatable.

Consider the options - either go into all settlements in australia and put 'city' is you so wish, or please leave alone.

However, consider that the Australian project has adequate for such an item with the usage of the tag and project of places (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_places) it more or less negates the need for the the usage of 'cities' tags and encompasses all australian human settlements.

Trust your mood or whatever travails you at the moment gives you the capacity to see what is happening in the explanation without taking it as an attack or whatever - either change the lot, or leave alone seems a reasonable challenge. JarrahTree 08:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Consider the options - either go into all settlements in australia and put 'city' is you so wish, or please leave alone."

I already did. I spend weeks adding the template to every city in List of cities in Australia by population, and have added most of them to my watchhlist to check for vandalism in the process. Australia happens to be among my main topics of interest. Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well considering your interest - good for you - please confine your city tagging to those places that are specifically designated as such and please leave the 'places' for all other settlements. JarrahTree 08:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So that gives you about a 100 items as cities as maximum, and hopefully all other human settlements are free to be allocated the 'place' tag in that case JarrahTree 08:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

And of course of you go, unless you can explain what you are doing -

there is nothing in the town of Kingaroy article that actually designates it as a city JarrahTree 08:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Why did you erase my reply? Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities does not cover "cities", that is an artifact title. Per its scope:

  • "This WikiProject aims primarily to provide information and a consistent format for cities of the world. "Cities" include municipalities and other civil divisions, including cities, towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods. "Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

May I just weigh in here and mention that fiddling with Australian city and town articles without a consensus has unleashed the argument of all arguments at Wikipedia in the past. I see the point on both sides here, and you're both technically right. If anything is awkward it's the name of that WikiProject that works on something while also covering a whole lot of something else. This might be a suitable topic to bring up at the Aussie noticeboard before too many location interested editors start those same old arguments again. -- Longhair\talk 08:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProjects rarely limit themselves to what the single-word title says. See for example:

That's why I suggested you were both "correct". I can just see a few editors disapproving of mass changes without a consensus being reached. We've been down this road before. I don't even recall the outcome other than both sides of the argument(s) agreeing to disagree to be honest. I haven't been around in a while but take my word, location articles are a hot bed here when mass changes hit the radar. -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
totally missing the point - Australian places already exists - has exactly the came criterion as 'cities' and by that some level of respect for the editors who invested times and energy in the australian project who set it up, there is not need to add 'cities' when the places project exists - a very simply request to leave off adding a duplicate project that is basicallly redundant in the face of the existing project. JarrahTree 08:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
JarrahTree (talk · contribs) is kinda right you know... AusPlaces WP has narrower focus right on point here. With your addition of the Cities WP banner it'd be almost like tagging every song article with the Music WP banner if such a thing exists. That's my view anyway. -- Longhair\talk 09:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Bad example. We don't have a WikiProject Music, but we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs which is indeed supposed to cover every song article. I never figured why we have dozens of WikiProjects on music genres, albums, songs, musicians, and music organs, but not a general scope WikiProject on music. It reminds me of an old Greek joke, concerning the employement of a large team of people to perform a task that typically needs only one person. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes a bad example but you got my point. On one hand, tagging might bring more editors to the article. On the other, it's overtagging. I see both sides. Nobody is right or wrong here, but again, mass tagging has pissed many off before. Bring it up on the noticeboard if you can't find middle ground here because I see one in disagreement here already and I bet there's likely more. I don't care either way... I've just been around long enough to know where this will usually end up... -- Longhair\talk 09:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
very telling - such a personal revelation - whatabout ships, milhist, biography - they are massive - so they have components - task forces or whatever - they actually try to compartmentalise components - just like music -
as I have said over the years - your contribution to wikipedia is extrarodinarilyy valuable - so very few people here on wiki0edia english have the consistency or longetivity to actually go through all the empty talk pages - and there you go making sure there are the projects are in there. I am simply trying to say, there is no need whatsoever for cities to expand and duplicate into the australian project- we already have the places project - which does actually cover all human settlements already, I dont think for whatever reason you actually getting that. JarrahTree 09:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"milhist, biography - they are massive - so they have components - task forces or whatever - they actually try to compartmentalise components" They are typically task forces within the same WikiProject, not independent WikiProjects. And there are often apparent misunderstandings as to what a task force's scope is supposed to be.

For some examples: Many articles on British Army personnel were never tagged with the relative tasksforce, there are disagreements on whether the Holocaust and related articles should be covered by the World War II-task force, and for some reason several articles concerning South Asia, Central Asia, and even the Caucasus keep getting tagged with the Middle Eastern taskfoce. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:5th-century French people has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:5th-century French people, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

French DirectorateEdit

Good Morning! Before reverting contributions it would be best practice to control not only the foreing entries (French, for exammple) but also those in English. The executive Directory took office in Luxenbourg Palace! The origin of the misunderstanding can be traced back to the entry’s title: Directory means both the five members and the regime as a whole. The former was elected by the Councils on the 31 October - operative the next day - the latter was inaugurated on the 26. Sources? Furet-Richet “The French Revolution”. Best regards. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't quote sources to me. You have to add them as citations to the article. See Template:Citation. Dimadick (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The Skeleton Dance reversionEdit

Hello, I saw that you reverted my edits on The Skeleton Dance as it was just deleting stuff. The thing is, the parameters I deleted were unrecognized by the template, including some that were discontinued in 2011. I'm willing to discuss this with you if you have any concerns. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You deleted information on the film's composer, in one of the earliest sound cartoons to feature an original soundtrack. You also deleted information on the film's animators.Dimadick (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw since then that some of those parameters were valid, I was just confused. Silly me. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and IrelandEdit

It is very rarely appropriate to leave this unpiped in text. Throughout its existence it was always known as just the United Kingdom. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It is appropriate for every article prior to the 1920s, because Ireland's population was covered as well. It also specifically covers the history and politics of this era, while the article United Kingdom does not. Dimadick (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ammon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Fiction set in Armorica has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Fiction set in Armorica, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

the project indexesEdit

It sure looked as if it was relevant - however the scope as pointed out by you - fair enough

the project is a real mess - it hasnt even had the quality part of the project properly started JarrahTree 13:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

NoticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I am very disappointed.Edit

A lot of thought went into the decision to make the edits I did to the Shakespeare: The Animated Tales Wikipedia page. I do not understand why you were so quick to dismiss all the work I had done and revert the changes. I have had a very rough year personally, and would really appreciate a little support here. I am only doing what I love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.16.15 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How is deleting most of the article an improvement? Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Renaming of categoriesEdit

Please see my proposal to rename categories Category:Military vehicles 2010–2019 etc Hugo999 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Clinton 3rd Earl of Lincoln - specifically his daughter Ann.Edit

I am going to remove the material relating to the marriage of Ann Clinton to John (or James) Harington - this is a complete myth and does not deserve to be on these pages - the contributor's assertion that there is evidence to back up this claim is simply not true - all the sources given for this assertion are based upon nothing but, what I would call, 'hearsay' - there has never been one primary source shown for the belief that a marriage, or an emigration took place. These sources are not 'academic' sources as claimed - they are schlock family genealogy publications.

Firstly the basic myth states that Ann, daughter of the Earl of Lincoln married John Harington (son of Sir John Harington of Kelston) - see one of the cited sources -

Ancestry and descendants of William Harrington or Herrington, 1718-1794. Author: Byron M Herrington Publisher: [Cambridge, N.Y.], [1964] Edition/Format: Print book : EnglishView all editions and formats Summary: John Harrington (b.ca.1584) married Ann Clinton, and emigrated from England to Boston, Massachusetts in 1630, dying shortly after arrival...

They apparently came over on ship called Prosperous - of which, more shortly.

This is very easily disproved - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrington_(died_1654) - (spelt wrongly, but I wouldn't expect anything less of Wikipedia.)

This myth seems to have originated in 'The manuscript of the Harrington Family Genealogical Gazetteer' by George H. Harrington - another of the cited sources. Both volumes are available on Archive.org - please take a look, especially at the cited 'Authorities' as there is not one valid source (apart from the Nugae Antiquae - which George Harrington hadn't read - because in his manuscript he gives Sir John Harington the wrong grand-parents.)

https://archive.org/details/manuscriptofharr01harr/page/n511 - vol1 https://archive.org/details/manuscriptofharr02harr/page/n771 - vol2

Apart from the wrong grandparents for Sir John, he also 're-names' the parents of Sir John's wife Mary Rogers as Thomas & Joan, when they are George & Jane; and also names children (brothers of the drowned John) that there is no historical evidence for.

Then we come to Ann - who, according to the manuscript, was born in 1596 in Newcastle upon Tyne - see page of Earl of Lincoln for real birth date (& born in Lincolnshire as were the rest of her siblings - the Earls of Lincoln having no links to Newcastle until the early 1700s.) Her grave is stated to be that of a Widow Ann Erinton in Cambridge Massachusetts - but this is believed to be Ann (Liddell) Errington[1] & the owner of the grave is the wrong age for the real Ann.

The children of this couple John & Ann are claimed to be - Benjamin Hearnden, Abraham & Rebbecca Errington & Robert Harrington who came later on a ship called the Elizabeth. There is currently a Harrington Y-dna project which seems to be indicating the descendants of Robert & Benjamin have different Haplogroups & can't be brothers https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/harrington/about (& Abraham & Rebecca have been mooted as children of William & Ann Errington of Newcastle.[2])

Then we come to the appendix of the vol 2 where the story is gone into in more detail & this contains 'quotes' from sources - apparently copied from Eva Harrington Baker's 'Harrington Family in Rhode Island' - I haven't looked at this one, but she may be the culprit of this fantasy story, because of all these 'quotes' are faked.

Here is the page where the quotes start in George Harrington’s manuscript https://archive.org/details/manuscriptofharr02harr/page/n783 and links to the books listed – although all the titles of the books are slightly wrong (deliberately?)

The first quote purports to be from ‘Collinson’s History of Somersetshire England.’ And mentions the story of a younger son of Sir John & Ann Clinton going to America. This book in the form described does not exist. Collinson’s book is ‘The History and Antiquities of Somerset.’ It’s a well-known book & used to be quite hard to get hold of, but luckily now all 3 volumes are on archive.org. The entry for Kelston is in Volume 1: https://archive.org/details/historyantiqutit01colluoft/page/214 and bears no relation to the ‘quote’ in Harrington’s manuscript. (I have seen quite a few family trees quoting the ‘evidence’ that the story of the Harington/Clinton marriage is in Collinson. It isn’t. There’s nothing in any of the 3 volumes. But, lots about the real son John’s descendants.)


The next quote is from ‘Founders of New England’ by Rev. Joseph. Hunter - this mentions the ship Prosperous sailed for Boston in 1630 full of Puritan emigrants & was embarked by Harington Fynes, son of Sir Henry Fynes (brother of Thomas Earl of Lincoln & uncle to Theophilus,4th Earl.)

The true quote is from Hunter’s The Founders of New Plymouth https://archive.org/details/collectionsconce00huntuoft/page/196

This is about a ship called Prosperous going in 1636 from Boston, Lincolnshire, England to Harwich, Essex, England, which was set upon by French pirates. Hunter does seem to think the 80 men on board could have been puritan emigrants; Sir Henry Fynes & he was not a zealous puritan as claimed. It also seems odd to me that there’s only men on board. (Harington Fynes, his son, died unmarried in England.[3])


The Final quote on this page seems to be from something called ‘The Princess Chronology’ which is actually Prince’s Chronology.

This quote - Seventeen ships arrived in 1630 for the increase in population to New England; one was sent out by a private merchant, stated by Gov. Dudley to be the Count of Lincoln - is not in Prince’s Chronology. https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis02prin/page/270 this is the only page that mentions anything like this quote & is pretty much Dudley’s letter.

Dudley’s letter: '…And in May following, eight more followed, two having gone before in February and March and two more following in June and August, besides another set out by a private merchant. These seventeen ships arrived all safe in New England for the increase of the plantation here this year 1630, …

We only know this information, regarding seventeen ships, because of the long letter written over many days in March 1631 by Thomas Dudley to Bridget Fiennes (daughter of the Sir William Fiennes & Wife of Theophilus 4th Earl of Lincoln). Nowhere in this letter does Dudley link the private merchant ship to any of the Clinton’s/Fiennes’. He mentions the private merchant ship in passing – which brings me to another vital point. If that ship contained Bridget’s sister-in-law Ann Clinton & her family (not forgetting Mr. Harrington Fynes) why doesn’t Dudley mention this? His letter is very detailed with news of many people not related to Bridget or her husband (the 4th Earl.) But, Dudley fails to mention anything; not even the death of Ann’s husband and the fact that she is now a poor unsupported widow?

Dudley’s letter in full: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod/9780415818124/Document6.pdf

Since the advent of the internet & the discovery of John Harington alive & well in England, at the same time as being drowned in Boston, there has been a shift & apparently a terrible mistake was made & it was Sir John's son, James Harington, who married Ann Clinton - the Ann Clinton for whom there is no evidence of existence.

If a contributor can find one piece of convincing evidence, only then should anything to do with this matter (fantasy?) be allowed onto the pages of Wikipedia (*as a caveat, I believe I can show evidence that James died in childhood, but I will call on it when required as this is way too long already.) Frankensteenie (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use primary sources, so these are useless. See here:

  • "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
  • "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[a] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." ... "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." ... "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Dimadick (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Clinton, 3rd Earl of Lincoln.Edit

Please, could you explain Primary sources are useless. Cite secondary or tertiary sources as a reason for reverting the un-verified story added to this page? My whole point is that the 'sources' added to this story are not even tertiary sources, or secondary; because there are no primary source involved. They are repetiton of a sourceless story = not sources at all. Frankensteenie (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read the sourcing policy above? Dimadick (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Clinton, 3rd Earl of Lincoln, again.Edit

Yes, I did, thank you - and it specifically mentions 'reliable' secondary & tertiary sources. A fictional account with no sources of any kind, should not be added to Wikipedia simply because it has been regurgitated and published. You are advocating serious consideration of an account that includes a man who emigrated to New England and drowned in Boston Harbour in 1630, and also simultaneously lived in England until 1654. Hence my above questioning of your reasoning as regards the source material. Frankensteenie (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019Edit

  Hello. I noticed that your username could potentially violate the username policy. This is because it contains the word “dick,” which could be seen as sexually explicit. I’m not reporting you to WP:UAA, because it appears that you have used this username for 16 years. If you frequently get messages like this, I apologize greatly. InvalidOS (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

They are the first four letters of my family name, as well as my nickname in real life. Dimadick (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:6th-century Kings of SardiniaEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:6th-century Kings of Sardinia 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:15th-century Spanish monarchsEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:15th-century Spanish monarchs 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sand Storm (2016 film)Edit

Hi. The film won the top prize at the Ophir Awards. This is Israel's equivalent of the Oscars. If you don't think it is notable, then please take the article to WP:AFD. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Winning an Award is meaningless. We are still lacking articles on films which actually have won the Academy Awards. What we need is "significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention". Where are the box office results, the critical reviews, the notes of its cultural impact? Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Common era has nothing to do with gregorian or julian calendarEdit

You're doing blatant link spam. common era has nothing to do with gregorian calendar. it's just shoehorned in as an attempt at advertising the term SWAGnificient (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

and you're baltantly edit warring. SWAGnificient (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

and you went over the 3 revert limit. SWAGnificient (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Pure nonsense. The years are counted by the Common Era. Neither Julian or Gregorian calendar have anything to do with the numbering system. Dimadick (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

straight up horseshit. pluss it's just an obvious shoehorn, the whole line reads like crap now. tell me common era spammer, what it year zero in the commone era calendar? could it be the perceived birth of Jesus? oh noes....cultural appropriation is to blatant. you can chove your common era bullshit where it's uncomfortable.SWAGnificient (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The calendar famously does not have a year zero. The Medieval moron who miscalculated the birth of Jesus was Dionysius Exiguus, and he placed the supposed birth several years following the death of Herod the Great. Dimadick (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Fascism talk pageEdit

Good afternoon, I have done some research and weighed in on the fascism talk page, I believe my research shows a blatant double standard. I would appreciate whatever viewpoint you would have in the matter. Thank you.RTShadow (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019Edit

Your recent editing history at 28th century shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:8th-century Holy Roman Emperors has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:8th-century Holy Roman Emperors, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran-ContraEdit

Hi,

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

Talk:Ronald_Reagan#rfc_85A761C

Thanks,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glacial till plains (Ohio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Ohio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Public holidaysEdit

Evening it was because you took out the following.

In 2020 the May bank holiday on 4 May will be moved to 8 May to commemorate the 75th anniversary of VE Day.[4][5]

I will reslove this but making a very minor change to keep everything in that needs to be kept in. --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:5th-century Greek people has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:5th-century Greek people, which you created, has 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kerry William Bate. 1978. "The English Origins of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Errington Family." New England Historical and Genealogical Register 132(1978): 44-50
  2. ^ Kerry William Bate. 1978. "The English Origins of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Errington Family." New England Historical and Genealogical Register 132(1978): 44-50
  3. ^ http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/lincoln1572.htm
  4. ^ BBC (8 June 2019). "May bank holiday 2020 changed for VE day anniversary". Retrieved 9 June 2019.
  5. ^ Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (7 June 2019). "2020 May bank holiday will be moved to mark 75th anniversary of VE Day". Retrieved 9 June 2019.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Return to the user page of "Dimadick".