User talk:Dimadick/Archive 1

editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.Valfontis (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Here is an invitation to the project too. Best regards!

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I see you are already pretty involved with articles relating to the project and adding project banners. If you wish you join, you can add your name in the list of members. Regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

With the ever expanding Wikipedia, I feel the basic need for any Wikiproject is locating articles of interest. Which is why I am typically adding project banners. I am afraid I am not knowledgeable enough in Dacian matters, lacking sources. I am just glad that a Wikiproject pays attention to an area of Europe that is often overlooked. Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

People on the project came with different interests and backgrounds. We have some interested only in project structure and not in the articles. I myself focus more on the project infrastructure, categorization, assessment than the articles themselves, at least at this point. We need more than article content help so your involvement so far is more than necessary to make you a member. Thanks for the kind words and help.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd leave a note to explain why I reverted a series of your recent edits. You added {{

Hi guys! Just wanted to pitch in from WikiProject Dacia. We clarified the scope of the project here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dacia/Goals. Indeed those cultures do not fit the time span described in the scope, even though they fit the space. But I just wanted to clarify that not only Dacians as a people are in the scope of this project, as described at the link provided. Projects like History, European History, Archaeology, Romania would be more appropriate. Not sure if there are projects about Prehistory and cultures. I hope this helps and I welcome your comments. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dimadick. You have new messages at Codrinb's talk page.
Message added 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notes Codrin.B (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

One observation: I don't know if you should set the assessment and the importance of an article to be the same for all projects. The importance of an article definitely varies for each project, while the quality assessment varies (usually not that much though). Each project has their own process of assessment and designation of importance and members of each project will assess the articles individually and separate from other projects. As in our example, I would think History of Cluj-Napoca should be of high importance to Romania, mid to Dacia, low-to-mid to European history, low to History. But I would let members from those projects determine that. Let me know your thoughts.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ideally this would be so. But many articles are left unasessed for years, so a single assessment is better than nothing. Take for example Wikiproject Romania. 1626 unasessed articles, most of them left like that for over a month. Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, there is a lot a of work needed to assess everything. Maybe is better to assess quality for all and let them put the importance? Or just assign the most sensible or logical importance. But I think you should consider joining some of these projects, even if you help only with assessment and categorization. You are doing the tasks that members usually (should) do after all. Cheers! --Codrin.B (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at La Tène culture. I've been trying to add a few relevant projects there and there is a guy who insists on stopping me. See the conversation on the talk page. I can see some of his points but I think is better to have more relevant project than less, since it stirs collaboration. I know you are very judicious about categorizing and adding WikiProjects. What do you think? Thanks and regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I was preoccupied with the creation of another article and a template. I had attempted to add a further Wikiproject to the La Tène culture in August 2010, at least from what I can see in the talk page's history. It is the Wikiproject of the United Kingdom since the article specifically mentions: "La Tène cultural material appeared over a large area, including parts of Ireland and Great Britain (the lake dwellings at Glastonbury, England, are an example of La Tène culture". May addition was removed by Johnbod, citing "Let's just have wp Switzerland; this could be under 15 or so country projects otherwise". Which doesn't really sound much of a reason to me. The wide scope of this article should ideally help list archaeological sites in each of these countries. But I would like to avoid edit warring about it. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You seem to be putting people into crime categories. People may be criminals, but they are not crimes. For example, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a 1968 crime. James Earl Ray, the man who killed King, is not a 1968 crime. Please consider this before you add people to crime categories. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop. I don't want to make a big deal of this, but people do not belong in crime categories. People may be criminals but they are not crimes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Monstrelet (talk · contribs)'s missus - he asked me to have a look at the page. Could I ask that next time you are tempted to turn a redirect into an article about something that's not related to where it's redirecting, you ask an admin to clear the decks first. Takes two minutes, saves considerable fannying about later :). I've got to sort it, you'll see some weird edits for the next few minutes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that the redirect was only used in a single article, right? Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite aware. I'm also aware that the history of the article prior to redirect was stuck at the bottom of your article, and needed to be elsewhere, and the talkpage contained references to the original article and the reason for redirecting it. The correct thing to have done was to have moved

WP:HISTSPLIT). Still, it's fixed now, so no worries. --Elen of the Roads (talk

) 14:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dimadick! A most impressive article, especially for a first-time effort. Well done! Only one observation on citing. Please cite each individual fact/sentence/paragraph with the page where you found it, not the entire page range that concerns the whole article. It is both more professional and helps anyone who wants to check up facts. BTW, have you nominated it for DYK? There's lots of absurd misunderstandings there that might pique the interest. And thanks for the heads up on WPDacia, I didn't know the Goths had been included in its scope. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not nomitated ir for DYK. I was under the impression it rarely deals with Medieval articles. About the citation, it might look more professional. But I try to avoid representing five pages from the same source as five different sources in the reference pages. Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I tried to qualify Anastasius' role with what was most appropriate in relation to his involvement in religious matters, but you may be right that neither Byzantine clergy nor Byzantine theologian apply, at least as far as we know. The best way to describe him is probably just as holder of a political office, and Magistri officiorum is good enough for that. I'll remove this category. Place Clichy (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Orlady (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You might consider using it when adding a template to hundreds of talk pages. I don't appreciate having my watchlist fill up with dozens of (+51) edits by you that I can't filter out. john k (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that you added a needed category for Josephine Baker shortly after my editing-unrelated proposal (thereby perhaps making it editing related). That's of pretty high importance to me, so you also help reinforce that fact for me. Thanks.Julzes (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Marhaba,

I saw you created "Internet in Turkey" If there is a Turkish page for "Internet in Turkey" could you link from the English page?

Saygilar

I did not create the article, only its talkpage. I am not sure if there is a counterpart in other Wikipedias. Dimadick (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why you added Elizabeth College, Guernsey to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women's_History. Elizabeth College is a (mainly) all boys school. Having been there, I'm not really clear that it would have any relevance to Women's History! Mrh30 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The monarch would be listed as 'founder' of lots of institutions around the time. There's a question of notability - it is a notable fact for the school that Elizabeth I was listed as the founder (or more precisely, it was founded on her orders). The fact that she founded Elizabeth College wouldn't be classed as notable for Elizabeth. Mrh30 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

Under the

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of

Women who have either made significant contributions in politics, arts. and literature or gotten significant coverage for other reasons. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that not every article on Wikipedia with a woman as its subject? There would not be an article unless she was notable. It does seem that every woman is being tagged. I suggest this would undermine the category and the project.

talk

) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Up till now, the project is merely locating articles of interest and has yet to substantially improve particular articles. Dimadick (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I came here to discuss this very thing with you. I don't see how women such as Julie Brown, Lisa Kudrow, or Kelly Gallagher (alpine skier) have a direct relation with women's history. They are women and notable but they aren't notable for having influenced the history of women as a whole. Dismas|^(talk) 09:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point I am looking for negative stereotypes of women in the media. Brown and Kudrow are both listed in association with such roles. Kelly Galagher seems to be important for Northern Ireland.

There are no women who have influenced the history of women as a whole. There are no men who have such influence either. At most they have influenced the course of history on their country or region. Not on a planetary scale. It would be setting the bar for inclusion too high. Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for commentary by more members of this particular wikiproject here. Dismas|^(talk) 09:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There is current discussion pertaining to this at the Women's History project page here. Would you mind not templating BLPs until a consensus has been reached? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You've been asked politely now to join the discussion at the WikiProject and stop tagging BLPs. Please do so. Otherwise, I will take your disruptive behavior to

From what I see on the Project's discussion page, the conversation is about inclusion of males and works about males. Which is what I have responded to. Dimadick (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WT:WikiProject Women's History#Where's the bar for inclusion in this project?, especially the recently added subsection, Discussion to reach consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please respect the wishes of other Women's History project members, as well as other editors participating in the discussion linked above, and stop placing the Women's History banner until we resolve issues of scope. Every editor who's expressed an opinion wants you to stop. If you find articles that you're sure other project members would find appropriate, please take time to assess the article when placing the banner, and place all the articles you banner on your own watchlist. Otherwise, you're only creating work for other project members that we don't want. We need to establish the credibility of the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dimadick. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Dimadick, several editors have expressed concern that you're adding this tag to so many (arguably unrelated) articles that it's effectively becoming meaningless. Could I ask you please to stop adding that tag completely for now, and join the discussion here instead? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

H again, I meant please stop adding the tag or adding any assessments, until the other editors on the project agree with what you're doing. Jessica Simpson, for example, could not reasonably be described as of mid-importance to women's history. Please don't add the tag or assess any other articles until the issues are resolved. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You count consensus and expect me to remain silent? I am still discussing notability with other editors. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There's consensus that you were adding the tag inappropriately. It's difficult, for example, to see the relevance of Olivia Newton-John to women's history (no disrespect intended), so it appeared that you were adding the tag to all pages about women. As a result, people asked you to stop adding either the tag or the assessments. There's now a workshop set up to decide the scope of the project, so perhaps you could take part in that and abide by whatever decision is made there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is still ongoing. Particularly since fiction related-articles were added by another user. Dimadick (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War over Water 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 its deletion discussion page 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention that in discussions on talk pages your tone often comes across as argumentative or defensive. While I know it was posted over a week ago, your response on the Women's History Scope page regarding the miscellaneous topics, was addressed directly to me, rather than contributing to the overal question posed. Quite frankly there was no need given the format of the page for you to offer an insult. Furthermore the accusation made was clearly out of line as I had directly linked the article in question, not copied it from someone else's comments. I wholeheartedly stand by my position that the article in question has nothing to do with women's history, although its role in fashion is clearly pertinent. The remainder of your comment was to call into question other editors (who I have not checked history to determine) who had tagged articles you did not agree with. In all you did not answer the question, only offered insult to myself and other editors. I post this in hope that you become aware that these behaviors are viewed less than favorably by other editors, and that you take a moment to step back and realize the majority of editors are not talking directly to you, but rather in a general sense. Our overall goal is to improve the encyclopedia. Your opinions and contributions are valued, and it would be appreciated if you would show other editors the courtesy and consideration they show you. Thank you. --Tbennert (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dimadick,

For the most part

WP:IPA articles don't have WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups templates. I was thinking of bringing the subject up at WP:IPA discussion and will do so. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk

) 17:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

BTW, do you have any interest in assessing articles? WP:IPNA has almost 2K unassessed articles here: Category:Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dimadick/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Dominique Papety

Hi! I see you added the women's history template to the talk page of Dominique Papety. I've left it, since I know nothing about him, but wondered if you added it by mistake. Dsp13 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dimadick! I've nominated Stephen Lekapenos and Constantine Lekapenos for GA, but there is the question whether the two articles should be merged, since most of the text is common to both and since the two brothers acted in tandem. As the original creator, what do you think? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They were individuals and co-emperors. I don't see people like Gordian I and Gordian II merged even when much of the the text in their article is in common. Why should Stephen and Constantine be singled out? Dimadick (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, Gordian I and Gordian II have considerably different texts, as their careers are different. Stephen and Constantine are virtually a pair, and their lives are known almost only from from their elevation as co-emperors to their downfall and exile, and during this period their careers are identical. Merging them is not "singling them out", there are plenty of articles on brother-sister pairs (cf. Sibling groups) in Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 11:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dimadick, I see that today you spent a lot of time tagging pages under the Women's History project. I'm wondering (again) if this is with the full of consenus of the team over there as last time editors spent a great deal of time untagging articles that hadn't been discussed. I'm not sure, for example why a List of Milanese consorts would come under the project and the character

The Project agreed to not include articles concerning women active following the year 1950. Medieval articles and lists are included. Literary works with impact are still included. Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You cannot rate this article low in importance. John Carver was the first governor of

Whatever your personal opinion is of the article in any other respect, Carver is definitely NOT low in historical importance. If I am misreading this rating scale, please let me know.Mugginsx (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He was already rated of low importance by Wikiproject United States and Wikiproject Massachusetts. I added the same rating to Wikiproject Calvinism because I don't see any mention of him being a particularly significant religious figure. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I see, well that scale is hard to read. Thanks for the explanation. Mugginsx (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dimadick. Yikes! Apologies for that, and thanks for picking that up. Going back through my draft, I can see how it happened... Is there such a thing as "Old Age Dyslexia"? ;) I re-read it at least five times and didn't even see the dates! Thanks again. Oatley2112 (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You're current - and valuable - project assessments are not putting any explanation in the edit summary. Maile66 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC

Hey there. I noticed you recently rated Co-operative Block Building as stub-class for two projects. How come it's stub-class and not start-class? It's not a very long article, but it covers its subject fairly well, has a number of reliable sources, and follows most general start-class guidelines. Chevsapher (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You can re-evaluate them yourself. But the sources are not really third-party or peer-reviewed. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-evaluation. Unfortunately, it's next to impossible to find ANY non-Crawford sources for the article, short of the NRHP nomination form. It's just one of many old business buildings in small towns throughout the Midwest, and sources are far and few between. There are VERY few people who even know the structure's proper name.

I'm seeing more of your evaluating on my watchlist. Keep up the good work! Chevsapher (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Dimadick (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dimadick. You have new messages at Mathonius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You did a good job in expanding and citing the article Duncan II of Scotland, I have been through the citations that you added and there are a couple of small matters that were not clear to me. Please see Talk:Duncan II of Scotland#Comment on citations -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the article

• Marianus Scotus
• Florence of Worcester
• The Annales Dunelmenses
• The Annals of Tigernach

I usually try to have the citation link directly to the external link. Incorporating all references to primary sources in the text of the article. Such as "this relationship is reported by Marianus Scotus, Florence of Worcester, etc. Lets say we incorparate all this in a reference called "Cawley1". The next reference in the same profile uses another source, a secondary reference to "The Kingship of the Scots" by Duncan, to analyze the nickname Canmore. And the cited possibility that it was actually the nickname of Malcolm IV. Lets say we incorporate this as "Cawley 2" and again point to Duncan.

After a relatively brief mention of Malcolm's career, not his primary area of interest, Cawley focuses on his death in battle. Citing two primary sources: Florence of Worcester and William of Malmesbury. Lets say we incorporate them as "Cawley 3".

Cawley next offers citations for the original marriage of Malcolm III, citing the Orkneyinga Saga. Then focusing on its lack of confirmation by other contemporary sources, as well as several possible interpretations on the subject. Which aren't really unique, but he summarizes the arguments themselves, not authors. We can site the information as Cawley 4.

He next offers a sub-profile on Margaret, second wife of Malcolm. Which incorporates four primary sources and a secondary one. Lets say "Cawley 5".

I get the notion that the process fills the article with somewhat redundant citations, instead of actually increasing reliability. --Dimadick (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy on what is and is not reliable sources (

AdD

it.

Using the example (Malcolm III of Scotland) that you give:

• "After a relatively brief mention of Malcolm's career, not his primary area of interest, Cawley focuses on his death in battle" there's the rub, Wikipedia's primary interest is in his notability ie his career. There are reliable sources that note his death so there is no need to use Cawley. If there were not then
  WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
  would apply, and where he cites a reliable secondary source, hopefully an editor will in the future go and check it and then Cawley can be removed -- In this article A.A.M Duncan (2002) is cited directly, so Cawley does not need to be cited for his Duncan information.
• "Which aren't really unique, but he summarizes the arguments themselves, not authors. We can site the information as Cawley 4." No because it is original research/opinion by a non expert/reliable source.

We can debate this between ourselves, but I think that if you wish to continue then it will be more constructive to do so at

WP:RSN as others may have additional insights and opinions that we can consider. -- PBS (talk

) 11:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the article Geography of the Falkland Islands. I am s littel surprised that you classed is as a "Start" level article. I am aware that other editors classed it as a "start"-level artcile, but when that classification was done (July 2012) the artcile had 15 references and occupied 10 kbytes. Since then it has increased to 35 kbytes and has 45 references.

The criteria for start and C class articles are are follows:

• Start: An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
• C-Class: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

With reference to the above, I would be obliged if you woudl let me know which of the criteria you applied in doing your classification? Martinvl (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you edited the intro of all US presidential election articles before 1900 to match the ones from 1900 onward ("was the XXth quadrennial election, held Tuesday, November X, XXXX" etc.). Thank you for the help! This past week I have been editing the articles to standardize them to the elections from 2000 onward (which needed some cleaning and tweaking themselves) and doing some general cleanup in the intros. The articles were all over the place and shouldn't start with some detail in the first sentence. I not only standardized the intro two sentences, but rearranged any paragraph or statements and standardized links as well to match whatever flows the best and is proper (as in, the candidates should be mentioned before any global events going on during the election). I managed to get down to 1900 a few days ago, and was going to start finishing the rest today, but then I saw that all the articles already had the intro in place. I still need to do some of the minor cleaning up for each one but at least you already have done the main edit needed in the meantime. Cheers :) 134.139.212.193 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem there. I thought you were doing a good job and thought to help finish it. Keep up the good work. --Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A user involved in the discussion on the Imperial Russian categories has been emptying people out of them out of process, which has the potential to disrupt the whole discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Augustan Age (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Your recent edits to Template:United States topics have led to concern about template size. You may wish to comment at Template talk:United States topics. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I appreciate you added it in good faith, but I have to disagree with you adding {{US history}} to all sorts of articles. This template is just too broad to be directly relevant to most of these articles. For example, do we really need this template at the end of Korean War, or the US Topics template? Is Korean War -> Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion a sensible link? I think not. The most important template, by far, is "Korean War," with "Cold War" also reasonable. If any history template is appropriate, it'd be a "History of Korea" template, and even that is a bad idea since the link between the Korean War and say ancient wars with Japan 900 years earlier is shaky at best. This is especially seen if someone considered adding a "History of China" or "History of Russia" or "United Nations" template to the article; all were relevant players in the Korean War, but none of them deserves a link. This is true for almost all the links you added - I would use these templates very carefully in overview articles on US History only, not just "any historical event involving the United States."

I suppose the point is - would you mind reverting your additions? Or me reverting them? I don't want to get into a revert war, so if you'd rather talk first or have a unified discussion somewhere else with others, that would also be fine. SnowFire (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, I would mind. My problem with the template as it stood is that it had too few articles and offered a poor overview of a wide topic. And I don't see why multinational events like the Korean War should only have the template of a single country. Dimadick (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Because of template bloat. Once two templates have been added to a page, the first template - often a specific template linked to extra-relevant topics - will be auto-collapsed to save space. Once 6 templates have been added, like at Korean War, most readers will probably not bother expanding ANY of them! It's just like bluelinks, one high quality link is better than linking every word in a sentence. And from what you say on the Korean War, by all rights you should also be adding {{History of China}}, {{United Nations}}, etc. as well, which is well on the path to making the pile of templates useless.

The point is that a single RELEVANT template works. For the 13th amendment, my test case which you reverted me on, the relevant parts of US History are already linked in the article - the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments, the 14th, etc. The rest of the US Constitution topics are sensible links. The ENTIRE SCOPE OF US HISTORY, including utterly random things separated by 100 years like second-wave feminism, are not appropriate. I strongly feel that this template should not be expanded nor added to every article vaguely related to US History. SnowFire (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you given thought to say, building an Index of United States history-related topics or Book:United States history or Portal:United States history instead of excessive template expansion? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already a Wikiproject about United States history, but not a particularly active one. Dimadick (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean a wikiproject, I mean a page where all your links can exist (such as the index book or list articles) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This is all but "fiction"; many things have surfaced on this matter in the recent years

— the Osimo treaty is a bilateral treaty which can not overwrite the peace treaty (as shown by the UN note, see source on page) — the issues can be opened anytime at the UN security council, as declared by the UN themselves in 1983 (post-Osimo) — the Territory is only under ITA/SLO/CRO administration, and NOT sovereignty. There is, in fact, no treaty saying ANYTHING about sovereignty changes. And you should know the difference between adm. and sov... it's huge. — dozens of proceedings in the Italian-run court of Trieste are completely stuck as citizens started appealing to an Italian lack of jurisdiction. — many triestine citizens are actively demanding for the peace treaty to be fully applied, as the provisional cold-war conditions Trieste's still in are still causing problems http://www.youtube.com/embed/c93JDQFlOyw?rel=0

So, the Territory has never become a "former country", it is still a sovereign entity. Unapplied? In most parts (not all, though), but surely still existing, and an open topic at the UN security council. And no-one has been able to prove otherwise, at any level.

The fact that in Wikipedia there are LOTS of italian nationalists who would constantly neglect this, doesn't change the bare facts — I'd hope the English wikipedia could be clear on this matter, without falling into the "stronger faction" trap. Triestines have always been barely represented on Wiki, as there are very few "full" articles on this land — and there's a reason for that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarska (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Can be opened" but has not been opened. The United Nations have taken no act on the matter since the 1950s. Unapplied sovereignity and nothing indicating recognition of a sovereign entity in the area. And the reason that Trieste is under-represented in Wikipedia is probably the same for the poor condition of other Italian and Balkan articles. Insufficient decent sources and/or interested users. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You say "nothing indicating recognition of a sovereign entity in the area", check this out (fully valid, obviously, and unchanged by any other treaties): Art. 21.2 — see for yourself! http://cronologia.leonardo.it/document/doc0104.htm No other document has changed this sovereignty status; meaning that it is a sovereign territory with two (now three) administrators (see: memorandum of understanding of 1954). Unapplied, in many (but definitely not all!) parts, yet untouched, as confirmed by the UN themselves in 1983 (important to say, after the Osimo bilateral treaty!). There's also the XVI resolution of the UN security council, which can be only overwritten by another resolution. It never happened so far. To this, I shall add many details, such ask the status of our free port, formally recognized even by Italy the fact that Italy won't ask for payment for motorway in the FTT, the italian prefect also having the role of "government commissioner for Trieste", and so on.. Anyone who've studied this in depth (and - sad to say - is not part of the academic establishment) will agree: the FTT formally still exists, albeit administered by other nations. Aarska (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

p.s: just to give you an idea of how UNPRECISE everything about trieste is on wikipedia, even the flag and coat of arms are actually... wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Images_to_improve/Archive/Oct_2007#Free_SVGs_for_a_Free_Territory.21 (i'd need some support on changing these with the right ones which I prepared a while ago for another project.. could you help with this? I've never uploaded/updated pictures on wiki) Aarska (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am also unfamiliar with the process of uploading. Perhaps you should raise accuracy concerns in the Talk pages of interested projects. Recently a number of "symbols" of defunct states were removed and replaced when users raised similar concerns. Dimadick (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added comments to the relevant discussions/to the previous discussion page of 2007, yet no reply :( how I can spark a discussion/update of these images, I really don't know... Aarska (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 15:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but these history of art ones are much too simplistic & misleading. Better not to have any, but rely on the parent cats. Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

They follow the pattern suggested by Art of Europe. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually they didn't, but when you can see the whole table of contents that's a rather different thing anyway. Article sections have to go in somwe order - categories don't. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up - the mathematics project does not tag categories with {{

Also noticed your tagging a lot of mathematical categories with {{WikiProject Systems}}. A lot of those seem to be outside scope of the project, which is only semi-active. The mathematics project does not need to tag categories as it has its own mechanisms to keeping track of articles so it might be best just to leave them untagged.--Salix (talk): 14:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the mathematical project does a poor job of keeping track of articles, since several relevant articles are untagged and haven't had many edits in years. The Systems Project has a wider scope because, by its nature, it covers Dynamical systems theory and areas involving multiple scientific disciplines. "Untagged" is equivalent to "invisible" for several categories which could use more attention. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

We have maybe an unconventional approach to article tagging, only really doing it if there is a need for tagging such as identifying which articles most need improvement. Just tagging articles which are in the project duplicates the work done by the bot which compiles Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (0–9) etc, 25,000 articles in all. The system is good for identifying important changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. With this system we don't feel a great need to tag every single article and an untagged article is not seen as a problem.--Salix (talk): 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Great job fixing {{

Thanks. I was trying to use it for easy navigation, when I discovered that several names were missing. Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on the category name change proposal. I hope you understand that it just seems illogical to have a category called "Robot characters in video games" and then exclude robot characters who appeared in video games from being listed. I just changed the proposal to simply change it to "Category:Video game robots", which I think would solve the problem, since the emphasis would become "video game" characters who are "robots"...

I noticed your comment on the CfD on Category:Pratt family. You have howerver ignored that we have an article Pratt family that is on a different family. We also have Category:Pratt-Romney family. The current category seems ambiguous under its present name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Storey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks,

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roman Frederick Starzl may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks,

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Frederick Starzl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Factor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Women in Bosnia and Herzegovina may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• radic In post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina, women are a driving force for change], IFAD</ref>), namely: the "transition from war to peace", economic transition and political transition. The

Thanks,

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andy Mangels may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *''Excelsior: Forged in Fire'' (December, 2007. Featuring [[Hikaru Sulu]].

Thanks,

Hello. Please note that that 'Navigation templates' (such as the 'Poets Laureate of the United Kingdom' template) should be placed above the 'Authority control template' ([4]). Please consider modifying your latest edits. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I found your user page while doing some wikiarchaeology. . I have restored all of its earliest surviving revisions from old copies of the Wikipedia database, so they are available to everyone now. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 11:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I noted that you had tagged talk:Antimatter with a WikiProject Skepticism banner. I wondered why. I thought that Antimatter was supported by known Physics and therefore would not be subjected to the close scrutiny given (say) dowsing. Indeed, it is on the Wikiproject Physics list. Student7 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It happens to also be the subject of several fringe theories. Cloning is also very real, but the inaccurate claims about it are numerous. Dimadick (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lady Charlotte Elliot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kinnaird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dimadick, My name is Jacob Mason J.Mason 11:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I am happy if we can be friends, If you want

I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies.

I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that?

This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.)

1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page?

2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist?

3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages?

3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time?

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content?

5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page?

6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page?

7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of connection, community and collaboration?

8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered?

Many thanks for taking the time to read this!

TheoryofSexuality (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

My edits on the Shakespeare page were based on a simple reason. I was adding pages to categories involving 16th and 17th century dramatists and poets. I found him being among the most notable ommissions. Though I have made minor edits to other Shakespeare-related pages, I am far from an expert on the subject. Personally, I have enjoyed reading the historical plays of the author but I have not activelly added to the pages about them. Dimadick (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Greeting from the Hans Kelsen page

Thank you for your recent contribution to this page. As you may have noted the page has started its path to improvement from being a stub. Could you possibly glance at the page and indicate the TOP five (5) things which are needed on this wikipage to get the page its first promotion to a slightly higher page review status. This would help for me to try to set up a thirty day plan or a forty day plan to try to accomplish. Once again, thank you for your recent contribution to this page!209.3.238.61 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(1)Names of parents, and family background. Was his family upper class, middle class, working class, etc. (2) He was the main drafter of a constitution. What kind of ideas did the document reflect? (3) The controversy which cost Kelsen his position at the Constitutional Court should probably get an explanation. (4) Did the Nazi Party dismiss him from his college office due to his Jewish origin or because of his ideology? Were his previous publications banned? (5) He is mentioned to have worked on international law in the 1940s. Any notable examples? Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This is really a nice list. Some of these items will need more time and some a little less. Hopefully by the end of the month they'll get addressed. Do you think, if all five are done, this would be enough for the page re-eval? Once again, thank you for your recent contribution! 209.3.238.61 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, any page can be re-evaluated at any time. A few more references could probably get the article ranked at C or B. Dimadick (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yours comments were really well presented. It has taken about thirty or forty dedicated edits to get them put into the page, and now it seems all of your suggested edits are in there. Could you check if its there in the way you wanted to see it, or if another top 5 list would help the Kelsen page get its first upgrade! Again, with appreciation. 99.140.184.64 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Some good work there, though citing your work would be great. Just one problem with the use of "Czechoslovakia" in the background of his family. This was among the better known states created in the aftermath of World War I. In a 19th century context, would this be the Kingdom of Bohemia? Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciation for the Gwelphs-and-Ghibellines edits. The harder research was about the Jewish identity questions versus the National Socialist Ideology passages which I could not tell if they met your standards on this tough issue. Also difficult was your Judge-nullification question of Kelsen which was not completely crystal clear because of its complexity. Again, with good regards for the challenge questions. 76.193.165.73 (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't tag the talk pages of redirects with a WPVG banner. It only creates error in the report since the project doesn't assess those. Thanks! :) ·

Hello, I'm

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dimadick! Please check a

This is inactive, & there is no point adding its banners anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Inactive projects and banners - I have a very different point of view - regardless of a projects inactivity or activity, the placing of project banners on talk pages is a positive project maintenance action that in the long term aids the overall capacity to understand where projects exist to support and maintain articles related to the subject of the project - and also to show up those articles or collections of articles that are not supported by a related subject. just my 2cents worth.

sats

07:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe if you read the discussion page you will find a decision was made earlier in August to keep this image. Verne Equinox (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your point being? I don't recall removing the image from any page. Dimadick (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dimadick. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 02:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Revisionist Western may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• figures, and this aspect of the spaghetti Western came to be one of its universal attributes (as seen in a wide variety of these films, beginning with one of the first popular spaghetti

Thanks,

Sorry I pinged you but maybe you didn't get it. Can you please look again at Talk:Burnt offering (Judaism), the proposal has (Judaism) in the title so is unlikely to be confused with non-Jewish burnt offerings. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that the practice has more to do with Jerusalem practices rather than the ancient Jewish diaspora, don't you? Dimadick (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my point exactly, the practice of

korban olah from the Talmud for something that finished 400 years before the Talmud was written? Your argument here and there is in support of the move, but you've written Oppose. In ictu oculi (talk

) 01:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D. H. Th. Vollenhoven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallelism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dimadick. You have new messages at Talk:Orhan#İbrahim's mother.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dimadick. I think you are misunderstanding what the article called '

So your solution is linking historical articles to an article about a modern state with internet connection? The United Kingdom only exists since the 1920s. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Its about the state since 1801. You're wrong. You're linking to an historical period, and causing much confusion. The succession of 10% of the population of the UK is not that significant to state it on every article. Stop it.

talk

) 10:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Secession, not succession. And it fundamentally changed the ethnic composition. Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to start a discussion at

talk

) 10:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Report what? That you are delinking historical articles and presenting false information? Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You are linking sections for countries to a historical periods. There for countries. Its in the name...

talk

) 10:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Kingdom of Scotland, etc. are all historic states. Not historic periods. The periods are the Georgian era, the Victorian era, and the Edwardian era. Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not as per consensus. Historical periods are any periods in history.

talk

) 10:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? The only ones involved in the discussion of this consensus were you and DrKiernan. Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See

talk

) 10:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. A six-year old discussion of three users, including myself, where I argue that "Redefinitions of a state's title tend to reflect changes both in territory and government.", Bastin argues that that the article should follow the template of West Germany and remain speaking about the past, and Petecollier argues "The UKGBI is worthy of its own article beyond a doubt, and that article by its very nature needs to be historical.".

The article being historical, not the subject being a historical period. Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discussing this in a private space, if you want to start a discussion at

talk

) 11:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dimadick. I noticed your interest in, and extensive work on, the Plan 9 article. I should point out that Hugh Thomas is both credited and uncredited. He is uncredited as a gravedigger. But he does have an Associate Producer credit in the original print, which still survives in some of the online versions. You'll see it on one of those cardboard "headstones". Hugh Thomas is dead, but his younger sister, Mary Davis, lives in Atlanta. She is a good friend. Hugh Thomas funded much of the production from an inheritance that he "appropriated" from his kid sister (she was in her teens at the time, and knew nothing about how her money was being spent), and from his mother. The other members of the Baptist Church were minor contributors. I have been trying to get that information (along with a number of other interesting details) in print, so that it can be included in the article with an authoritative reference. But it is hard to get a reliable source interested in such an old story. Only fanzines, which can't be cited, seem interested. So, if you get a chance, you might want to look at one of those archived (online) versions of the print to confirm that Hugh Thomas is, indeed, credited. Gulbenk (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death. Since you participated in a previous discussion about this category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the page

Ok, I will contact him. Grateful!

talk

) 00:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Too bad, he has already not edited since January 2012! What to do?

talk

) 00:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could search for further information on Cristofari on googlebooks. If there is a better source on the subject, you can effectively rewrite the stub article and remove the erroneous information. Dimadick (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you already found the discussion at Category talk:Martial arts media. I thought User:Jmcw37 made a valid point - certainly a search using categories mixes up factual and fictional characters when they are included in the tree but I also (as noted in the above discussion) don't see a good alternative. Is there a clearer Wiki policy statement then the one User:Jmcw37 quoted and should this be taken somewhere to get a larger consensus.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going by the practice of Category:People which includes Category:Fictional characters as a subcategory, and note that most of its categories have fictional subcategories. Category:Politicians has subcategory Fictional politicians, Category:Archaeologists has subcategory Category:Fictional archaeologists, etc. It has been the de facto consensus for several years, though I am not aware of any specific statement on the matter. Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I'ld like to see what User:Jmcw37 thinks on the matter and maybe this is something that should be taken to the wider community. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to She Was an Acrobat's Daughter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• is depicted among the lyrics, and the audience sings its content: "please do not spit on the floor").<ref name="Hartley">{{cite web|url= http://likelylooneymostlymerrie.blogspot.gr/2012/05/160-she-
• Steve, ''That's All Folks!: The Art of Warner Bros. Animation'', [[Henry Holt and Company]], 1990)

Thanks,

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, I really appreciate the contributions that you have made in adding articles and categories to

To be honest, I see which Wikiprojects cover the central article on any given concept and add them to the localized versions as well. "Corruption" has long been added to Wikiproject Philosophy, under the ethics taskforce, thus the addition. Philosophy still covers aesthetics, right? Dimadick (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a pretty good guideline, but again, philosophy covers the abstract concept (e.g. "hope" or "love") not every instance in the world of those concepts. Aesthetics is a major branch of philosophy, but the visual arts project takes over for individual works of art. A good guideline is whether or not there is a philosophy academic from a credible institution who writes about that subject in a philosophy journal, or teaches about that subject in a philosophy class. Greg Bard (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is just convenience that you add a template with them, but when you add project tags on talk pages that are category talk pages - class and importance are surely red-herrings as they do not show up anyways... and to actually fill those in on category pages is strange, they do not register...

Actually these are mistakes, I usually try to erase the ratings from the banner I copy. Thanks for correcting it. Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So far I was just watching and noticing without comment or editing, my apologies I have been critical of quite a few other editors recently, and have to reign in my enthusiasms! , if I find any more in the near future, I will correct them - have a good new year

Hi Dimadick

I just spotted this edit by you. I am puzzled; why you think that Category:Astronauts falls within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Because they are listed as a topic in

That list includes the following entry: "

astronauts about pre-20th century stuff, which is all in ancient astronauts and Category:Ancient astronaut speculation

.

It's good to see that Category:Ancient astronaut speculation is tagged in this way, but it seems to me that your tagging of Category:Astronauts was mistaken, and should be reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please

Why not? Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spring Fever (1982 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Film scores by Fred Mollin]]]

Thanks,

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alien Trespass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Gary Westfahl]], a reviewer of [science fiction]], found this film and ''[[The Man from Earth]]'' (2007) to be overlooked gems of the genre. He

Thanks,

hello? I have a problem with a persistent IP vandal that has returned. whoever has the IP address stated is disrupting Looney Tunes articles by either overlinking or adding links to things unrelated to the article. request crackdown on these edits. Visokor (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hell-Bent for Election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort on this article. I know you'd feel that your edits shall not be perished, and I agree with it. However, your edits (see here) have caused numerous citation errors, and the two sections you worked on are now way too large, and hence are given

Undue Weight? In an article with such a large Legacy section? I would think they are too short. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The two subsections you worked on are only part of the Beginnings section. Also, the two of them combined are larger than the Legacy section already. Still thinking they're too short? By the way, I've posted on the talk page about a new section, which consists of biographical contents. Feel free to join. Forbidden User (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be off until 25 June. If you wish to continue our discussion, please wait until then. Thanks.Forbidden User (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an automated message from

This should be the reason why your link to the page was red-linked. It seems you have addressed the issue, and so I probably won't revert your template again. Thank you for your effort. Welcome to discuss on June 25.Forbidden User (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at AN/I - thought you might be interested to know that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_effecting_major_category_changes_for_biographies - cheers

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help! Dutchy85 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How does this category relate to Category:Jewish law and rituals? Editor2020, Talk 01:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, Category:Jewish law serves as its parent category and also as a parent to nearly all categories about Jewish legal matters. Dimadick (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I hope this is the correct way to contact you - if not, please forgive and suggest a more appropriate way.

I have received an advisory about your new page on the Palace of Khudáyár Khán, which was on my watch list. I have already contributed a pic to the Kokand page. I have several pix of the KK palace at http://www.panoramio.com/user/463501/tags/Kokand and would be happy to contribute if you think they would be helpful, but am loath to do all the work of uploading to Commons if they are not wanted. Could you kindly let me know, and I'll upload them. You can contact me directly on [email protected]. Best wishes.

aqsakal 11:50 am, 18 March 2015, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreywatson (talk • contribs) 08:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not really my page, I just did minor edits. If you have multiple pictures of the Palace, you should choose one or two and then upload them. Thanks for your effort. Dimadick (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

First Lady Michelle Obama is not a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. She was extended membership into the Sorority as an honorary member but did not accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.113.119 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)