User talk:Dimadick/Archive 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That when you add project tags on talk pages of categories, that adding class= and importance= are totally redundant, and it is much better that you simply put the project without any coding like wikiproject history for instance inside the brackets?

Adding class and importance is just a matter of preference. It makes it easier to copy into article talk pages. At what projects are you amazed? Be specific. Dimadick (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Preference has nothing to do with category talk pages - category talk pages are always shown up as 'category' in their coding in recent projects (older coding shows projects as NA). There is no need to add to category talk pages anything to do with class or importance - because category pages are never assessed, it gives the wrong message to people who do not know any better, who come along and see coding which suggests that category pages are assessed. They are not.

Fictional Australian or British police officers.

1. If a character is fictional, they are not 'real life'.
2. If they are not 'real life' - there is no real connection to crime, law, law enforcement - as they are fictional.
3. Crime, Law, Law enforcement are focused on and have scopes that relate to non-fictional aspects of life.

Your addition of the extra projects in this case is confusing 'fiction' with 'real life'. The Crime, Law and Law enforcement projects are relevant for 'real life' in the world, in their scope, would be very unlikely to include fictional varieties of their original scope.

I have watched another editor take a whole day to remove and revert a misunderstood interpretation of yours within the last few weeks, I fail to see anything that looks like in your large edit history that you have taken on advice, suggestions or corrections that suggest you understand why some editors who might see the addition of projects that 'don't make sense' - you seem to simply apply the same misinterpretations again and again, it is a pity, as I would have thought others advice might actually have a sense of

Fictional categories are treated as subcategories of their historical counterparts and belong to the same WikiProjects as their historical counterparts. Fictional characters are treated as peoples. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your addition of a category on a redirect page. My understanding is that except for very limited circumstances, redirects should not be categorized. When I looked at those limited circumstances, this redirect did not appear to fit into those exceptions.

Thank you! Onel5969 (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are categorized, so that the material can be located. I will revert your edit. Dimadick (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop re-arranging the scope of projects without first seeking consensus at projects,

Fiction is a subcategory of non-fiction and the same Wikiprojects apply. Dimadick (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no they dont each project defines its own scope, if you want to change the scope of a project then you first need to seek consensus Gnangarra

I don't change the scope. It is always the original scope. Dimadick (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

when you add articles ot a project that werent previously part of that project you are changing scope Gnangarra 14:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the articles are covered by the original scope. Dimadick (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Blocked 24 hours for disruption Gnangarra 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are disruptive instead. Populated places are covered by cities and fiction is covered by literature. Dimadick (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farms and farmers, fictional or not, belong to WikiProject Agriculture. The scope states simply that it covers "agricultural related topics". Nothing about excluding fiction. Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The scope of WikiProject Architecture is to include articles on "Architecture, buildings, construction globally and historically." Nothing about excluding fiction. Indeed parent category Category:Fictional buildings and structures is covered by the Project-related category Category:Buildings and structures by type.
• WikiProject Home Living covers per scope: "home related articles." It does not exclude fiction. It includes Category:Fictional houses and its film-related subcategories.
• WikiProject Military history does not exclude fiction. Indeed it covers Category:Military fiction and its relevant subcategories and articles. It also covers Category:Fictional weapons.
• WikiProject Middle Ages does not exclude fiction. It covers Category:Middle Ages in popular culture and castles are a feature of the era.
• WikiProject Archaeology does not exclude fiction. It covers Category:Fictional archaeologists and articles like Indiana Jones. Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

Categories about populated places, whether in fiction or not, fall under WikiProject Cities. Per its scope " "Cities" include municipalities and other civil divisions, including cities, towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods." Nothing about excluding fiction and indeed parent category Category:Fictional populated places is already covered by the project. Also the categories belong in WikiProject Literature which includes parent category Category talk:Fictional locations. Fiction in general falls under the scope of WikiProject Literature and the relevant article has been rated a Top-importance article for the WikiProject. Category:Fiction is also covered by this WikiProject and is a subcategory of Category:Literature by genre. The scope of the WikiProject also does not exclude fiction: "This project is devoted to increasing the quality of articles dealing with general literature subjects, literary criticism, and literary terms or genres which encompass several different types of writing." Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nonsense. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 15:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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

Literature is not part of the issues, its the confusing between what is real and whats is fake(non fiction vs fiction)... that aside the block is because despite being challenged and reverted on your interpretation editors were trying to engage in discussion yet you continued to make edits based on your interpretation knowing you didnt have consensus to do deliberately trying to engage in edit wars with multiple editors. When I initially asked you to stop and seek consensus you continued to make changes to the scope of projects, refusing to stop the disruption even choosing to edit war where I had reverted you. Gnangarra 15:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to tag hundreds of articles to a WikiProject, you really need to be check with the project participants rather than relying on your reading of the project page. You recently tagged hundreds of extinct languages with WikiProject Extinction, on the basis of their description "extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general". That took hours to clean up, after a discussion on the project talk page revealed that they hadn't meant to include languages. Moreover, it became clear in that discussion that they were focussed on Holocene extinctions, but in the meantime you assigned them thousands of dinosaur articles to look after. In that case, the fact that there were no language or dinosaur articles in the project already should have given you pause. You need to be more careful because by tagging articles with projects you are creating work for project members. You need to be very clear that that is what they want, by asking them, not extrapolating from the wording on their project page. Kanguole 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Literature is not part of the issue (not issues) then why have you removed the WikiProject from the relevant articles?

Why check with project participants of semi-active Projects when their scope already states what is covered or not? There is no confusion between non-fiction or fiction when one its a subcategory of the other and treated as part of the Project. It is not my reading after all, no WikiProject was built to exclude fiction or fictional topics.

Extinction is extinction and WikiProject Extinction does not cover only animals. It also covers Category:Extinct ethnic groups and Category:Human extinction. Its not a long stretch to include languages as well, since it is a related subject. I think you also misrepresent the discussion on the project talk page. "They" were only 8 users and their relation to the WikiProject is not that strong. In summary of their identities views:

• 1) User:BabelStone is not a member of the WikiProject. The articles mentioned in his/her talkpage fall under WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, WikiProject Archaeology, WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, WikiProject China, WikiProject Buddhism, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Central Asia, WikiProject Mammals, WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Death.
  • He/she offered the opinion that the scope of the Project should be limited to the extinction animal and plant species. That is it, no input on the idea to limit the scope of the Project.
• 2) User:Melly42 is a member of the WikiProject since 2006. He/she has contributed on articles relating to both animals and plants. He/she originally offered the opinion that the Project covers "Extinction in Science" and should therefore include languages. He/she then apparently changed his/her mind. Suggesting that the Project should be renamed to "The Sixth Extinction" and its scope narrowed to extinctions in the Quaternary. Which he/she clarified would includes the Pleistocene, the Holocene, and the latest Ice age. He/she also suggested to include not only extinct species but also threatened species. (The relevant article on threatened species is already part of the Project.) His/her proposal was ignored.
• 3) User:Kanguole (you) is not a member of the WikiProject. He/she offered the opinion that the Project scope should be limited to extinct organisms. No input on otherwise redefining or renaming the Project.
• 4) User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish is not a member of the WikiProject. He she opined that languages should be removed from the Project. No other input on otherwise limiting the scope.
• 5) User:FunkMonk is not a member of the WikiProject. He/she offered the opinion that prehistoric animals should be excluded as they are better covered by WikiProject Dinosaurs and WikiProject Palaeontology. He/she added that there have been problems in defining the scope of the project before. No comments on the language issue.
• 6) User:Animalparty is not a member of the WikiProject, he/she is a member of WikiProject Palaeontology instead. He/she admits to not having interaction with this particular project. He/she was in favor of removing the languages from the Project. He suggested a redefinition of the scope to establish "at least rough boundaries". He/she suggested that it was redundant to include species that were not recently extinct or currently endangered. He/she suggested limiting the Project content to organisms that went extinct within the last 10,000 years and to processes and patterns of extinction in the past and present. He/she felt that WikiProject Paleontology adequately covers fossil organisms. But added that there will always be some grey areas and overlap between the two Projects.
• 7) User:Maunus is not a member of the WikiProject. He/she suggested limiting the scope to extinct organisms. No input on otherwise limiting the scope to Holocene extinctions.
• 8) User:Plantdrew is not a member of the WikiProject, he/she is a member of WikiProject Plants instead. He/she observed that this was Project was established in 2006 and predates WikiProject Palaeontology (established in 2008). He/she pointed that a large number of Extinction articles should also be tagged for the newer Project. He/she also pointed that Palaentology-related articles have been tagged for WikiProject Geology (established in 2007)). He/she added that the Extinction project page doesn't even mention the Palaeontology project. He/she suggested narrowing the scope to mostly recent extinctions. But added that previous extinction, well-studied or very well-known fossils should still be in scope. He/she suggested two possible dates for drawing a line between the two Projects concerned. Either 10,000 BP or 1500 AD. He/she concluded that the Project should still cover Australian megafauna even if it precedes the dates he/she proposed. His/her input were ignored and there the discussion ended.

So no positive conclusion on redefining the scope to the Holocene and no consensus on excluding dinosaurs. Indeed the original page of the Project not only includes dinosaurs but mentions them in its featured content. So there was no wrongdoing on my part in adding dinosaurs.

Finally no edit wars with multiple editors. Just yourself. Dimadick (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Membership is kind of a red herring. There's no need for you to be a member of a project to add a banner (provided the banner is appropriate, which is the issue here). Similarly, it should matter that some of us who commented at WP:EXTINCTION haven't added our names to the member list there. I recognize Animalparty, Maunus and FunkMonk's names as they are frequent editors to a variety of organism related articles (and also frequent editors to the talk pages of organism related WikiProjects). I'm guesing Maunus and FunkMonk have the WP:EXTINCTION talk page on their watch lists. I'm not sure how Animalparty stumbled across the discussion. I found it after I saw a bunch of articles on long (palaeontologically) extinct organisms pop-up on WikiProject Fishes and WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles as unassessed (and no, I'm not a "member" of either of those projects, but I do watch them). Adding the Fish/AAR banner to those articles was good work on your part, but the extinction banner doesn't seem like a good idea (unless WikiProject Palaeontology is supposed to be wholly redundant to WikiProject Extinction).

Yesterday I saw that you added WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Plants and WikiProject Forestry banners to Dryad. This gets back to the fiction/non-fiction thing. Speaking as a "member" of WP:PLANTS, dryads (and other fictional/mythological subjects associated with trees) just aren't relevant to the project. I can't imagine that the women's history and forestry folks are likely to be interested in dryads either. Dryads are relevant to WikiProject Mythology and WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.

You don't have to be a member to tag an article for a project, but please take the time to learn what the project's scope actually is, not what you think it should be. Look at what kind of articles are already tagged for the project. Finding and tagging articles relevant to a WikiProject can be very helpful, but you've been tagging stuff that is marginally relevant at best. There are a variety of projects specifically dealing with subjects in fiction. I really don't think most projects (that don't specifically deal with fiction) are interested in all fictional instances of items related to the project's scope. There was some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals/Archive_3#Fictional_animals about tagging fictional animals for that project (there are 3 other sections in that talk page archive where editors who apparently mostly work with fictional subjects express surprise that fictional mammals have the mammal banner). Plantdrew (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how WikiProject Palaeontology is redundant to WikiProject Extinction if there is some overlap in their scope. Articles and categories regularly fall within the scopes of multiple WikiProjects. Which is a good think because more editors are exposed to them.

WikiProject Religion covers Ancient Greek religion as one of its Top-importance subjects and Dryads are within that scope. Women's history does not cover only history but women's culture and religion as well. Dryads are as much a relevant subject as the Nymphs which have been tagged for the Project and rated Mid-importance.

Dryads are also important to the role of trees in religion. Currently WikiProject Plants and WikiProject Forestry are the only one which cover trees and related subjects. Category:Mythical plants is covered by the Project and trees are a sub-set.

Besides WikiProject Fictional Characters and WikiProject Literature, I am not aware of any WikiProject which specifically covers fictional subjects. Which are the "variety of projects" that you refer to? Dimadick (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals in media covers fictional animals. There are dozens of WikiProjects focusing on particular fictional media franchises. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon (fictional species) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Redwall (individual animal characters) are two that are particularly animal related. I see that you tagged Nymph for Women's History (although an editor involved with that project came along and assessed it), and you are also the one who tagged Category:Mythical plants for WP:PLANTS (I don't object to having the project tag on the category, but individual mythical plants are getting out of scope). Dryads may be relevant to WikiProject Religion, but not to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/Interfaith_work_group, which is how you'd tagged dryad. I don't think the interfaith work group is intended to be a dumping ground for any religious topic that doesn't have it's own project. Interfaith should be stuff like Buddhism and Christianity or First Crusade. Plantdrew (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Dimadick's tagging Garuda for WikiProject Birds (at the same time as reasonably tagging for WP Mythology) shows a lamentable failure to judge whether the article is really of interest to members of this wikiproject. BabelStone (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda falls uncer Category:Mythological birds of prey which is covered by WikiProject Birds. How is it then out of scope? What failure to consider precedent? Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged, I'd just like to offer some free advice to you, Dimadick. You clearly have a history of adding categories and/or project tags that cause some amount of controversy. You appear to be operating under a strict logic of "if X, then Y" to justify your mass actions, which may work well for robots, but not for humans, inefficient though we may be. Whether your actions are justified or not, you have been advised many times to stop your controversial actions and reach consensus first. Remember that WikiProjects are a resource for editors, not for articles. If articles are tagged with Project banners that none of the Project members have any expertise or interest in, than it is likely unwarranted to tag that article, even if it falls under one of the project's categories. This is where common sense and consensus comes into play. There need not be a 1-1 correlation between Category and Project. For example, an article about an obscure species of fungus beetle that lives in a remote region of China would reasonably be placed in WikiProject Insects, as those editors are likely to be somewhat familiar with the subject matter, but placing it in WikiProject China however, may not draw any additional editors, and hence is purely superfluous, even though it may be categorized under "Animals of China". An article about a well-known Chinese insect with significant cultural ties however, probably would benefit from the "cross pollination" of different groups of editors. To give a real example fro your contributions, I don't see any significant benefit to tagging

How can you determine in advance that there are no "Project members" which "have any expertise or interest" in an article that remains untagged? That can only be determined once the article is tagged and remains unseen and unrated. Are you expecting a crystal ball to make decisions for WikiProjects?

Junior Woodchucks is a fictional organization and Category:Fictional organizations is covered by the relative Project. Its also an instance of Scouting in popular culture and that has been rated as being of High-importance to the relevant Project.

"where you think others are likely to object." That is just it, I don't see any reason for the objections given the stated scopes of the Projects and what articles have already been tagged. Dimadick (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The scope of a project is a very important aspect it provides not only a place for editors to discuss topic issues but also provides statistical information about article content for research. The cross over between fiction and non fiction causes misleading statistical information to be presented and create falsehoods about the level encyclopedic knowledge all of this contributes damage to the credibility of Wikipedia as a resource. Gnangarra 00:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What falsehoods? This is not fabricated information, not unencyclopedic material. The credibility of Wikipedia is therefore not at stake. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction is entirely fabricated information Gnangarra 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction is an important cultural aspect and a term of art. Not at all fabricated information, nor unencyclopedic material. Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dimaidck, your reasoning and interpretations above, are very helpful to understand your interpretaion of the english language, projects, and wikipedia - in future when you revert edits that I have corrected, I now have a clearer understanding where you misinterpretation comes from. Your explanation of fiction forts and castles simply reinforces how your word association method can be applied to wikipedia.

I am almost certain that project tagging was never originally intended in the way that you have applied. I would suggest you have forgotten to leave your imprint at Sherlock Holmes, I would be in

Also going to the trouble to identify who or what constitutes membership of projects simply reinforces my sense of where your interpretation of scope simply doesnt really gel.

The word 'scope' has nothing to do whatsoever with individual editors presence, absence, career. It is as though the english language and word associations are being apllied to the project in such a way we have a parallel universe. Scope is the 'aim' of a project stated on the main page, not the talk page - the aim/scope - is to create specific boundaries limits and context. Scope in wikipedia is something to be able to be confident that if 'a' is the subject, category, article - then the project applied on the talk page is directly related, not derivative.

You have argued constantly that deriviative and associated subjects are relevant. I would be very interested to see a specific policy or practice from somewhere other than your own editing that asserts that that is a suitable means by which project tagging or category maintenance can be asserted.

Word association around a subject like you have done at forts and etc is not what project tagging is about.

Project tagging on talk pages on wikipedia is applying the most immediate direct subject project to the category or article, and showing the reader or editor with a project that directly relates to the subject of the category. I have never seen a policy or precedent argued that a word association tree is what is required.

As you have claimed this style of editing as your own, with your style of reasoning, it is not necessarily how the larger wikipedia project originally intended, unless in some way you can prove that.

The reasoning of why you intrepret words or subjects in a particular way are subjective without specific links or evidence of policy or practices that are given as exmaples by others.

You have not referred back to any specific policy or precedent as to where this style of associative, rather than sparingly specific project allocation is applied.

Also, credibility of the larger wikipedia project is effectively at stake when a collection of project tags are attached to a category or talk page of an article - and some seem disjunctive, or difficult to understand why they are attached.

The evidence of asserting a practice in a defensive manner, and seeking to point at individuals involvement are really disapointing, it would help so much if you might show some understanding of others points of view, or apologising when someone has to take a day to removed what has been decided is a bad set of edits. I would have no problem if there was any sense why of understanding there is a reason why people might want to question your editing.

If someone was to correct my project tagging, I have no problem if it was indeed a better 'fit', but your reverts of my edits at Australian and British crime fiction characters are not convincing, sorry. It simply compounds the issue of a possible misinterpretation, rather than a well reasoned argument as to why the other projects need to be added. Your explanation fails to convince me that you understand the larger issue of 'scope' and what it means in both wikiprojects, and categories.

Dimadick please, not Dimaidck. "Word association" is one way to put it. A subcategory still falls under the scopes and relevant projects of its parent (or parents). For example, every subcategory of Category:Film should be covered by WikiProject Film.

What would my "imprint" at Sherlock Holmes be exactly? I have tagged relative subcategories for WikiProject Media franchises / Sherlock Holmes. This is the most relevant WikiProject.

My identification of membership of projects has nothing to do with defining scope. It simply determines the level of involvement the editors have with a given project. The implication was that my edits where objected on by members of the Project Extinction and that there was concensus to limit the scope to Holocene extinctions. I pointed that only one member of the Project was involved, and there was no consensus to exclude prehistoric animals. The suggestions to redefine the scope to that purpose where ignored. At this moment the original scope still stands. There was consensus to exclude languages and therefore I refrained from tagging more language-related articles or reverting any changes to those I had already tagged. For the same reason that I do to longer object to the upcoming deletion of Category:Nudity in film. Consensus has been reached on both subjects and no protest will change it. This is not yet the case with other categories, since there haven't been any Project-wide discussions.

Derivative subjects are by definition related. To quote wiktionary a derivative is "Obtained by derivation; not radical, original, or fundamental.", and "Referring to a work, such as a translation or adaptation, based on another work". The definition points to a close relation, not irrelevance.

"I would be very interested to see a specific policy or practice from somewhere other than your own editing". Lets see then on WikiProject Birds examples.:

• Category:Legendary birds was tagged by User:koavf in 2010.
• Category:Birds in popular culture was tagged by User:koavf in 2010.
• Category:Birds in art was tagged by User:Maias in 2012.
• User:SatuSuro
  (you) in 2010.
• Category:Films about birds was tagged by User:koavf in 2010.
• Category:Films about penguins was tagged by User:koavf in 2010.
• Category:Animated films about penguins was tagged by User:Softlavender in 2015.
• Category:Heraldic_birds was tagged by User:koavf in 2010.
• Category:Individual birds was tagged by User:koavf in 2010.
• Category:Talking birds was tagged by User:koavf in 2010.
• Category:Fictional birds was tagged by User:koavf in 2010.

So there is precedent that editors tag derivative, fictional, and mythological subjects for the WikiProject. This was not my editing that started the process.

"Defensive manner"? Am I not here to defend myself after all? "It would help so much if you might show some understanding of others points of view". I don't see anyone seemingly understanding my point of view and I am unable to see how fiction and art are irrelevant to WikiProjects. Particularly since their scopes do not define it so.

"Apologising". The consensus was established after the fact, the "bad edits" did not occur against previously established consensus. I did not set out to vandalise articles, defame anyone, or add my POV into the relevant articles.

"I have no problem if it was indeed a better 'fit'" There would be a better fit only if an alternative WikiProject was suggested or established for the relevant categories. This is not the case here. Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You feel happy with that, fine. Thats your problem, I do not believe you understand what I asked. Using indivudals edits as your answer, once again you are focusing on individuals. You havent shown a specific policy in relation to anything you have been asked to explain. I really find that this is an exhausted argument space. I feel nothing has been gained for yourself, or the larger project. Thanks for your effort to explain yourself, I see no further purpose in my line of enquiry or questioning. Enjoy your life, I have no further interest in communicating with you on these issues, I see no hope of actually getting to a point of consensus of meaning from too many elements of your arguments and reasonings, I leave it up to fellow editors to make what they might from your explanations.

If you drill down the category tree, you may eventually go out of scope. Tagging the categories above for WikiProject Birds might be reasonable, but tagging every entry in the categories is not. Category:Grape may be in the scope of WikiProject Plants. The subcategory Category:Grape sodas is not (but grape sodas should be taggged for WikiProject Food and Drink). There's no harm in tagging the articles in Category:Red wine grape varieties for Plants, but it's far more likely that editors who want to work on those articles will be involved with WikiProject Wine, not WikiProject Plants. If you drill down from Category:Viruses, you eventually arrive at a bunch of biographical articles in Category:Deaths from smallpox. The fact that a notable figure suffered from smallpox for a few days before dying does not make them relevant to WikiProject Viruses. Plantdrew (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comments at

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly just blindly adding WikiProject tags that have not relation to the categorizes or pages that you are adding them to. If you don't understand the scopes of these WikiProjects, then you shouldn't go around adding them randomly. This kind of behavior is disruptive to all projects involved. —Farix (t | c) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Egghead Jr.1.png

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Egghead Jr2.png

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gotcha Grabmore1.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Julie Bruin1.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lady May1.png

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lightning Rodriguez1.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sappy Stanley1.png

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Saul Sheepdog1.png

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Wackyland Rubber Band1.png

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Witch Sandy1.png

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat query

This edit seems odd. Was it a mistake? You made a related edit in relation to

Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Historical foundations of Calgary Alberta

Who are the present big four in Calgary now that the Legacy is still alive. Is it a type of Royalty. Did there Kin carry on. Does our Government control the legion now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.154.116 (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Andy Panda-Woody Woodpecker1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 "

Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:Chewcudda1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 "

Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:Crazy House1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 "

Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:Egghead Jr.1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 "

Stefan2 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:Egghead Jr2.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 "

Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:11th-century BC Jews

Category:11th-century BC Jews, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020, Talk 03:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century BC Jews

Category:10th-century BC Jews, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020, Talk 03:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9th-century BC Jews

Category:9th-century BC Jews, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020, Talk 03:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:8th-century BC Jews

Category:8th-century BC Jews, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020, Talk 03:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project banners - importance rating

Hello Dimadick, thank you for your efforts updating and maintaining project banners. But with this edit [1] you "copied" importance assessments from one project to other project banners in Talk:Enabling Act of 1933. Such projects often have differing view about what's important for them. Case in point, the Enabling Act is certainly not "low" importance in a Germany-related context. Without detailed background knowledge of every single project, it would really be better to keep the importance parameter empty, when you introduce new banners or update old ones. GermanJoe (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, most fascist and Nazi-related articles have been rated "low" or completely ignored by the WikiP?roject. You can always re-rate if you disagree. Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption about a specific handling for Nazi-related topics is wrong. Currently c. 16,000 articles are unassessed for importance throughout all kinds of topics (due to a lack of activity in maintenance tasks, not due to "ignoring" a specific topic). Anyway, please don't add importance assessments for WP:Germany - it is just extra work for other editors to double-check and fix them later. GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Social Democrats, USA. You removed numerical values in several parts of the article, in between apparently innocuous edits (over-linking, tag-bombing with citation-needed templates). Dame Etna (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism, I am trying to link to proper articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking and tag-bombing are bad enough.

How do you explain removing numbers in several sections?

Dame Etna (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware how this happened. I have had this problem in other articles too and not only a Wikipedia. The minute I start editing, the numbers in dollars are gone. While numbers in Euros or others coinage remain. I am not sure if its caused by the preferences of my browser. Dimadick (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that this problem has happened before to you.

You are responsible for your edits. Please stop editing until this "problem" has been diagnosed and solved. Please examine your other edits, since you discovered this problem, and correct all such errors when you can edit properly. You can ask for help on talk pages with less risk of destroying articles.

When you are nearly ready to resume editing, please correct the articles from which you removed numbers.

After you have corrected such edits and are getting ready to make fresh edits, then please first read

WP:TAGBOMB

, and then (when you resume) please follow the policies and consider the recommendations. In particular,

1. citations are avoided in the lede (which summarizes the body, which should be properly documented of course).
2. Linking depends on the audience: The SDUSA article attracts readers already knowledgeable about US politics, usually either interested in US socialism or neo-conservationism or pro-democracy/anti-Communist foreign-policy. Excessive linking distracts readers, and so each link should have the purpose of linking to a topic helpful to such readers (or that are so central to the SDUSA that linking is appropriate). People disagree on the extent of linking in articles, while agreeing on the general guidelines.
3. Tag bombing distracts readers. Please only put citation-needed where there is an assertion about which a non-paranoid person would have genuine doubt. For example, it is hard to imagine what good is done by having a citation-needed tag for the short assertion that SDUSA had a newsletter, etc.

Of course, some of the links may have been useful. When you can edit without hurting articles, please consider whether some of your reverted edits may be useful to

SDUSA

.

Good luck!

Dame Etna (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to

WP:RFD

I am really impressed by your contributions to

WP:RFD. You have had a lot of good input, especially with a couple comments that other people might have overlooked. It's good to see someone that is able to come in and participate in a lot of different discussions on a wide variety of topics. It's much appreciated. Thanks again, Tavix | Talk  16:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:6th-century Spanish monarchs

Category:6th-century Spanish monarchs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 10:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Führer of Nazi Germany

Category:Führer of Nazi Germany, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nymf (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early Bulgarian history - 1-7 cent.

Dear friend, as to your several years-old project, please consider, that many of the earlier Bulgarian Rulers were clearly mentioned as "Kings" (Князе) , no "khan" (never) or "han" - never!

Here is one research about that: ^[1]

--176.12.58.89 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/K%20Gerbov%20-%20KANAS%20-%20KNYAZ.pdf „Канасубиги” е „княз”, а не „хан ” или „кан”

Orphaned non-free image File:The Legend of Rockabye Point1.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Just wanted to thank you for adding WikiProject links to the many categories I created. :) Trivialist (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film articles

Hi there. Per {{

WP:FILMCAT for consensus on how WikiProject Film generally orders categories. It makes things easier if they're not cataloged alphabetically. For example, when you group together "category:Spanish-language films" and "category:English-language films", or all of the production companies, you can quickly tell if one of them is missing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Welsh-speaking people

Given the centuries of persecution suffered by Welsh-speakers (just read the history - it makes for shocking reading), the fact that the Welsh language still exists as a living language is nothing short of a miracle. Naturally therefore, it is of much interest to those interested in the Welsh language, those interested in Welsh current affairs, those interested in minority languages as well as to many members of the public in general, for it to be acknowledged that certain notable public figures e.g. politicians, sportspeople or musicians have the ability to speak Welsh. Indeed, failing to do so seems to suggest that the Welsh language is of no significance, to anybody. Whilst some may argue that the language that one speaks is not actually significant, this viewpoint is likely to be prevalent in individuals with a limited understanding of minority languages/cultures. Put another way, whilst the fact that a notable person can speak English may not be necessarily of interest - mainly due to the fact that English is the third most widely-spoken language in the world - by contrast, when a notable person who happens also to speak Welsh is not acknowledged as a Welsh speaker this is missing a very important point, simply because Welsh is much less prevalent than English. Yes, defining a cohort of Welsh-speaking people is of interest to many people, even if that does not happen to include the person(s) who instigated the deletion of this category in the first place. Therefore, just as the section 'Notable people with the name Prabhu', or 'Category:Black British people', for example, may not be of interest to a certain individuals, the fact that these Categories/Sections exist confirm the fact that they are of interest to at least some Wikipedia users, and the same is true for 'Category:Welsh-speaking people'. I hope that the majority of Wikipedia users/editors wish to build a more informative and inclusive encyclopaedia, and not an encyclopaedia that projects an Anglo-American bias whereby smaller cultures and languages are dismissed. I therefore call upon those who instigated this deletion to see beyond their possible prejudices, and remain true to Jimmy Wales' Statement of Principles by re-instating this category without further delay please as many useful links have been lost with the current deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haul~cywiki (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Legend of Rockabye Point1.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Smith

Hi. Can you help me with Samantha Smith?

For example, the more I research, the more I'm finding that the article reflects the pop-culture version of Samantha that downplays or omits how her Catholic religious faith influenced her peace activism. The widely used version of her letter leaves out the following lines: “God made the world for us to share and take care of. Not to fight over or have one group of people own it all. Please lets do what He wanted and have everybody be happy too.”.

talk) 14:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Categories

Hi Dimadick, if you'll check

Robert Latham Owen's categories, they are listed under Category:Cherokee people and relevant Native American categories. The subcategory Category:American people of Cherokee descent is for people that are not tribal members/citizens, much like Category:American people of Irish descent is for people that are not citizens of the Republic of Ireland. The subcat comes up frequently because Cherokees are the tribe that everyone in the universe has heard of. Although I see someone went crazy in 2014 creating subcategories of Category:American people of Native American descent... Yuchitown (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown.[reply

]

TAFI

Could you please take a look at TAFI. I have nominated a few articles that could need some input Anna Lindh, Yolanda Saldivar and Bill & Gustaf Skarsgård. If you find time for it please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Batman (comic strip), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Don Cameron and Alvin Schwartz. 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) 10:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your tagging of articles for the WikiProject Sanitation

You have tagged a long list of articles and category pages with the WikiProject Sanitation, e.g. "violence against women in country XX" like here. Whilst the article

talk) 13:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Antony Gormley 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:

• | birth_place = [[London]]], [[England]]<ref name="Guard250605" />

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

talk) 17:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Education in Argentina may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"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:

• equality. According to the last census, the illiteracy rate is 1.9%, the second lowest in ]]Latin America]]. In the last decade, Argentina has created nine new universities, while the outflow of university

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

talk) 06:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:VPP#ITN system on deaths

I invite you to central discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your kind words about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, in your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise.

A couple updates:

1. The discussion closed as Keep.

2. The Wikipedia article

Good Article quality

.

Thanks again ever so much for acknowledging my efforts to improve the Quality of articles on Wikipedia in this manner.

— Cirt (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk header positioning

Dimadick, I have noticed that you've recently made a lot of changes to several talk pages of articles, and repositioned the {{

✒ 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to speedily rename:

• Category:1st century Physicians to Category:1st-century physicians Hugo999 (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women and the tagging of every single female tennis player

Please do not keep tagging every single female tennis player with "WikiProject Women." That is far too broad a category topic and it will be reverted unless there is a very specific reason to include it.... not just gender. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussions on WikiProject Women about the scope. Stop removing the banners. Dimadick (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will report this to wikipedia administrators if you keep adding the banner to any more articles. Your addition is being challenged so please do not keep adding it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and report it. Your edits are disruptive. Dimadick (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edits

Please use edit summaries per

WP:ES. NE Ent 12:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:Kid Colt, Outlaw1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 "

Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Please add...

Kayla also was in an all girl jazzy gospel group Detroit that put out one slamming album. I cannot think of if now but they were pretty strong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.102.47 (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Thou-Vou1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Thou-Vou1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

File source problem with File:The Racing Scene.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The Racing Scene.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:The Legend of Rockabye Point1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 on 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Stacey1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Stacey1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:Scooby-Doo! and the Spooky Scarecrow.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 on 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Santas's Workshop2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 on 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Santa's Workshop1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Santa's Workshop1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:Peterkin1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 on 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Peterkin1.jpg

Thank you for uploading

image copyright tag

; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Life Begins for Andy Panda1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 on 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

This is the second time this message has been left on your talk page. Please, please take two seconds to put an edit summary in. It really helps recent changes patrollers and everyone in general.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! JQTriple7 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

You should post an edit summary for every edit, no matter how small. A simple message such as 'copy edit' or 'removed broken link' should suffice. Please use the edit summary box EVERY TIME! Thank you for your understanding, --JQTriple7 (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Serneholt

If you want to, please take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt, which is this weeks selected TAFI article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Missed that, regards, WCM_email 18:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion you may be interested in

An RfC you were recently involved in (

WP:CANVAS

, all of those involved in the RfC discussion (for, against and comment) are being notified.

• User:SNUGGUMS Closing editor
• User:Robsinden
  Proposing editor
• User:TonyTheTiger
• User:Betty Logan
• User:MarnetteD
• User:Lady Lotus
• User:NinjaRobotPirate
• User:Lugnuts
• User:TonyTheTiger
• User:BattleshipMan
• User:Dimadick
• User:Rlendog
• User:Frietjes
• User:Debresser
• User:Wikipedical
• User:Jusdafax
• User:Mamyles

Again, I apologize for the intrusion -- seeking clarification. Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 08:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

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

Serge (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergius. 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) 10:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki city

I think the edit here is not a city article? Am I wrong, reply back.--Vin09 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I may be wrong, there is a town tag also.--Vin09 (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

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

King Arthur (film)

added a link pointing to Ceretic

Livius Andronicus

added a link pointing to Andronicus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Net (1995 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:Films about women]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

talk) 11:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Film categories

If the categories in a film article are already sorted per

WT:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Having them in random order makes me unable to see which categories are missing. Since this is not a guideline, there is no need to raise an issue. There simply is no consensus. Dimadick (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

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

Nome King

added a link pointing to Quarrel

The Lion King

added a link pointing to Barry Johnson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malcolm X

Please stop name-calling and edit-warring, and use the Talk page. Thank you. 66.87.115.70 (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:Malcolm X. 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. 66.87.114.164 (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing categories in inherently disruptive. Reverting vandalism is standard policy. Dimadick (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have now violated 3RR. Please self-revert your last edit or I will report you and you may be

blocked from editing. Also, please read WP:Vandalism and familiarize yourself with what is and what is not vandalism. Removing categories that violate the guideline is not vandalism. 66.87.114.164 (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do so. See how your removal of categories by an anonymous user looks. Dimadick (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. See

WP:AN3#User:Dimadick reported by User:66.87.114.164 (Result: ). 66.87.115.115 (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Where? I could not find it. Dimadick (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

page protection.  Jayron32 13:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You will no doubt notice that I undid your last revert. Instead of further edit-warring, please read the Talk page message from Grutness. If you don't agree with my and his understanding of the guideline, please pursue WP:Dispute resolution instead of further edit-warring. Thank you. 66.87.115.43 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atokos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patra. 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) 08:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

I have trimmed your "Analysis" section in the "Nome King" article. The section is way too long (still), and contains too much pointless plot summary, and is written in poor, wordy style. Please do not revert my edit without clearly explaining why on the TALK page, as per Wikipedia policy. Before reverting an edit, you should seek consensus on the TALK page. That way, you can avoid being blocked AGAIN for edit-warring. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to rename Category:20th-century rulers of Portugal to Category:20th-century Portuguese politicians & Category:21st-century rulers of Portugal to Category:21st-century Portuguese politicians Hugo999 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodegisel as father of Arnulf of Metz

Do you have a source for this? Srnec (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the information, I just noticed the interconnected articles. Dimadick (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that specific piece of "information" is not in the articles you were adding categories to. No wife is named on Bodegisel and Mummolin's descendants are not mentioned at Munderic. Srnec (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they are mentioned in the more detailed and better sourced articles. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodegisel is well-sourced. What article(s) are you talking about? Srnec (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With sources from the 1970s, that are not particularly notable in genealogy. The article on Chrodoara and her descendants has a source from 2004 and actually is about Medieval women. Also much of the work on Charlemagne and his ancestry was published by Christian Settipani since 1989. Dimadick (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a better-sourced article than the one on Chrodoara. The source in Chrodoara does not maker her husband Bodegisel (cf. the genealogical table on p. 237). These figures are postulated ancestors of the Carolingians. That does not make them Pippinids. Srnec (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define Pippinids and (Arnulfids) if not as an actual family line? And the connection to Bodegisel is already in the article. Dimadick (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. What do sources say? In early medieval genealogy, there's a lot of postulated reconstructions. I still haven't seen a source for Bodegisel being related to the Pippinids/Arnulfings. Wikipedia is not a source. Srnec (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films produced by Ralph Guggenheim

Category:Films produced by Ralph Guggenheim, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

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

A priori. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello again

Catholicism as a project exists. why revert to a previous situation? where is a justification for this? revert explains nothing.

Catholicism as project is a stand alone project and has been so for some years, why tie it up into the christianity project?

If you revert without adequate explanation, I can only assume you want to be challenged on editing style, as well as the point of fact.

Also about 6 months ago or more, I asked why put class= and importance= in tags on pages of categories, as I said they are not relevant and can give other editors the misaprehension whether categories can be assessed or not.

JarrahTree 22:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism is one of the sub-projects of WikiProject Christianity, and they already lack much coordination. No need to remove articles and pages from WikiProject Christianity and make them more difficult to locate. And you were removing one of the pages I had tagged before.

And I don't know about you, but I sheldomly come across a rated category. I usually remove the rating when I locate it. I tend to use this class and importance templates as a shorthand to copy from the category to the relevant articles, and as a reminder that this WikiProject actually has ratings.Dimadick (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, your answer is such I disagree with your interpretations of things. But we need not waste time or effort on that. I would ask you not to revert my edits, I will not revert your edits in relation to project Catholicism (only), that way in

WP:AGF

, we might come to some conciliation rather than venture into edit warring which I note, has had you blocked more than once in the past.

Have a good new year JarrahTree 00:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I created an article about singer Carina Jaarnek today. She died yesterday. If you want to, take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good for a start article and sources. Do we have access to obituaries? Dimadick (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Jaarnek for an ITN mention. I am not sure but I think her success with the crew of Elvis should be enough for RD atleast. I will take a look at obituaries.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrek VII

You did a good job helping to establish the page for the

Dorrek VII. Is the picture you added the part from Fantastic Four #209 the one detailing the moments before Dorrek VII's death at the hands of R'Kill? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, that is one of the few images of Dorrek I could find. Dimadick (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

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

Dorrek VII, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Byrne. 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) 11:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking to overturn the unsupported end to establishment in the District of Columbia categories

I am trying to figure out how to get a deletion review for categories like Category:1869 establishments in the District of Columbia. The big problem to me is that the close misconstrued a previous discussion about whether there should be one or two parent categories as giving any opinion of what the child categories should be named. This is mixing discussions in a way that should not occur. When 3 of the 5 people who participated in a discussion opposed the outcome decided upon for well reasoned reasons, It is a travesty of policy to impose the change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Exodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramesses. 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) 15:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cryptids

Hey, why did you restore all of those dead links, amateur blogs, and inappropriate sources that I removed at List of cryptids? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you did not discuss anything, and did not suggest better sources. You merely deleted everything. And remember to sign your messages.Dimadick (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy for restoring dead links, amateur blog weblinks, and other unreliable sources. In fact, we have a policy where they're to be removed. A bad source is no source at all and the burden is on the user who restores the material to attempt to source it (

WP:PROVEIT). Please refrain from restoring inappropriate sources (and dead links for that matter). It does nothing to improve the article and only contributes to a continued poor state. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Non-free rationale for File:Breeze Barton1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

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 "

Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Restoration of poor sources, reinsertion of pseudoscience, Wikistalking

Did you just revert me with the summary "Folkloristics is no more "science" than creationism"? And then follow me around on Wikipedia, undoing my edits by putting the

WP:PROVEIT? Whatever your beliefs, you've stalked me on Wikipedia, reverting all my edits and didn't even bother to message me along the way, inexcusable behavior no matter how you slice it. This is harassment and you either stop now or we'll discuss this through different channels. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• You removed relevant content on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology which is still active, and has been active since 2006. It does not matter if it a science or pseudoscience. We even have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology and nobody has asked for its deletion.
• You deleted articles without any discussion. You never bothered to nominate even one for discussion, nor did you search for improved sources.
• You seem to think
  Folkloristics
  is a proper science, despite the fact it has more amateur researchers and more crackpot theories than the average pseudoscience.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories (don't use all caps) states: "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." What does this has to do with articles like Chupacabra which do not fit the mainstream ideas? If the fringe theories are notable, we cover them anyway. Have you bothered to look at Category:Fringe theories.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience, which you have apparently failed to read, states: "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community." This does not mean we delete the pseudoscientific material to state only one viewpoint.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight is the one you have clearly violated: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You only support a single viewpoint.

No, I am not a "cryptozoologist proponent", nor a member of the WikiProject. I am afraid your deletionist zeal will destroy decent articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, are you calling

folkloristics a pseudoscience? Got a source for that? No? Better call the universities then! In the mean time, I suggest you keep your hands off of topics relating to folklore, as you've clearly got a fringe axe to grind. Meanwhile, yes, academics do study folklore—folklorists!—and they're exactly who we turn to on topics such as chupacabra

, not fringe theories and pseudoscience.

Second, there's no excuse for wikistalking and I'll use abbreviations all I want, thanks. We have policies about

WP:PROVEIT

, as you seem be unaware that it's not OK to restore badly referenced and non-referenced material.

Now, if you want to collaborate, we can collaborate. If you want to push pseudoscience and harass me, that's not going to fly. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What universities? In Greece at least, folkloristics is considered a sub-field of philology and anthropology, not an independent subject. Check the article on Dimitrios Loukatos, a notable Greek folklorist. And what do you have to say about the centuries-old beliefs of folklorists in "pagan survival", that are widely seen as fringe and unproven? Dimadick (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, this guy. Yeah, folkloristics is alive and well, from Scandinavia to the United States. Most schools in the United States, for example, have classes to even departments and programs on folkloristics, here's a nice list restricted to the US: [2]. Philology and anthropology intersect both currently and historically, especially out of the Finnish school, yes. They're historically related, especially due to the development of the comparative method. Today folkloristics covers everything from recipes to jokes to contemporary legends to, indeed, the relation of modern folk tales to pre-Christian belief, the latter particularly in connection to philology. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Century

Hello. Please undo your edit-warring revisions to

First Century. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

What edit warring? The text now matches the article title and the format in every other century article. Dimadick (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

Hi, just a quick note that I'm going to break out your list of questions on the "Alternate History" edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and put them in a separate subsection. I will respond shortly. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horned deity and self-published source

Hi Last May you added a lot of material sourced to this self-published book. I'm not sure he is, but the book fails WP:RS obviously and it appears he isn't a professional archaeologist.[3] Can you sort this out? Thanks. (I did search on "Foursome group" but that was all porn stuff, then found the Amazon site) Doug Weller talk 13:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only section that has this source is the section of the Indus-Valley civilization, because this is the only one that discussed the sources in detail. If it fails RS, it might have to be removed altogether. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that then. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do what? I already removed the relevant passages. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

I saw you added links to the article Jews. Please read

WP:OVERLINKING. There is no need to repeat links, or to add links to simple words ("slavery" comes to mind). Debresser (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philistines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alyattes. 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) 11:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Translation Studies

Hi Dimadick. I see that you have been placing templates on the talk pages of several translation-related categories. Thank you! Please feel free to make any further proposals on the page of WikiProject Translation Studies. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism is a stand alone project

I see editing like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Benedictine_abbots&curid=44133481&diff=710713780&oldid=629924944 as bad faith.

Our conversation at hello again above - I have decided to change from the stance of January, unless you can come up with something more than what you offered in January (see item 100 above), I believe that there is nothing wrong with Catholicism as a stand alone project, and that if you revert my usage, I will ask for some form of mediation to work through the issue. If you revert me without discussion like you have done about 8 hours ago, I take that you are not interested in others interpreation of the project tagging system that you create in very large numbers with little or no interference. For the record, on the bulk of your edits you do very well with no apparent mistakes or misinterpretations.JarrahTree 01:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert you. I noticed that very few categories on the Monks category tree have actually been tagged by WikiProject Religion or related subprojects (Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism). I was trying to concentrate all "abbots" categories under the Christianity banner. Dimadick (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, small problem abbots occur in religions other than christianity FYI JarrahTree 08:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but all of these categories seem to cover Christian abbots exclusively. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious doubts about a very small percentage of your tagging (as I say a very high percentage seem ok), and this is a case where in

WP:AGF I consider the tag to be misleading, and regardless of what the connection you might make, abbots in the english language can be buddhist and christian, and as a consequence, not second guessing in your tagging, it should be religion - in that way you are covered. JarrahTree 08:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

How does this apply to category Category:Byzantine abbots and its subcategory, which cover a state with no knowb Buddhist population? Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we have a problem, there is no byzantine project (and it looks like turk and greek ethnicity and possession issues will traumatise any opportunity with that one being resolved in the short term). Byzantine abbots - (1) whatever the main project that claims byzantine history (2) and christianity (Byzantium - it has nothing whatsoever to do with buddhism, there was never a buddhist component to byzantium) - simple. JarrahTree 09:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi, I wonder if can borrow some of your language in

Draft:The Myth of the Eastern Front article and would like to use some of it (with attribution on Talk page) of the description of the book. I would also like to use your discussion of the review article that you reference. Please let me know if that would be okay. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Its okay with me. Dimadick (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing valid cleanup tags

Please do not remove valid cleanup tags, as you did at Stuart Little 2. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 130s 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:

• *Marcus Didius Severus Iulianus, better known as [[Didius Julianus]]. Born in 133 or 137 (the primary sources are contradictory to each other, he would eventually become a [[List of Roman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

talk) 17:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 410s 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:

• *Flavius Placidius Valentinianus, better known as [[Valentinian III]]]. Born in 419, he would eventually become a [[List of Roman emperors|Western Roman emperor]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

talk) 11:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Chandler

Hi, if you got time for it, please take a look at the article about Oba Chandler. Any improvements are welcomed. Thanks.

It seems to be a very detailed article with plenty of references. I do not see much room for improvement. Dimadick (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Legend of Rockabye Point1.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Verma Businessman profile

I saw your comments and recommendation regarding Abhishek Verma's profile on wikipedia.

Firstly, thank you very much.

Second, we implore you to put in additional efforts to make the case stronger.

Should you wish to contact me, kindly write me on: [email protected]

Thank you

Prashant Bhrigu Advocate India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.201.106.69 (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Verma's photo

Is it possible that you could help us with upload of Abhishek Verma (businessman's) photo on his wikiprofile? We tried thrice but got deleted. We were using his photo from twitter profile from the web with no copyrights issues. See link below:

https://twitter.com/sheikabhi

Of the two, we were using the photo of his in which he is solo.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorincharge (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Towns in South America

There is nothing in the name of the category that imputes that Ghost Towns either have been or are currently cities. reason for revert. JarrahTree 15:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject has been expanded years ago to cover a variety of human settlements, not just cities. It covers anything from ancient settlements to modern villages. Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost towns is sufficient, your editing history over years shows an astonishing array of over-association and over-adding projects to talk pages. I am not criticising most of your larger volume shorter sets of project tags, but some really take the understanding of scope well beyond what is meant and understood in normal english comprehension of english correlation for a category subject.

A specific continent - South America. A specific type of place - Ghost Town. There is really nothing in most ghost towns that are associated with cities which really should imply current (it would surely have extra words in the title of the project if it was extended in scope). Adding extra projects well beyond the basic implicit meaning of what is in a category title's meaning has been a problem over years now. JarrahTree 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of Wikipedia's basic problems is identifying articles the thousands of articles that may fall within each WikiProject's scope and working to improve them. Often what you term "over-association" seems to ignore the content of the articles in question. Dimadick (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? - the category is what you and I spend time tagging talk pages of... with projects. I fail to believe that some of your more spectacular collection of projects on talk pages actually understand the difference between scope of the projects - there are projects that have umbrella or covering scope that in effect does not necessitate putting the subsidiary projects on the talk page as well - this is nothing to do with articles - it is to do with understanding the difference between having a 'parent' category say, where editors add 'child' categories on main space. I am saying in some cases you include covering/umbrella projects with projects that are inherently included in the larger project. JarrahTree 15:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Anyways, as I have said before you get away with it all due to your sheer volume - a large and significant percentage of your project adding on talk pages is harmless, and in its own way contributing to the overall good intent of wikipedia. Just sometimes I am not sure where your logic comes for some, but when you get wrong, wow, you get it wrong. cheers. I am off now. JarrahTree 15:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four (2015 film)

i don't know, i wasn't seriously asking you to add this, it was just out of my curiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.210.21 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Edwardian era has been nominated for discussion

Category:People of the Edwardian era, 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) 06:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

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

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon

Sorry, I was unaware that WikiProject Women's scope includes fictional females, hence my mistaken reverts. FYI, Category:Fictional females by medium provides a good starting point for mass project tagging through AWB as almost none of them have been added yet. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Project has already made a number of mass taggings, but many of its categories are new and still being populated. Dimadick (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the worst: Revision history

I noticed you had some recent edits on this page. I was surprised to find that the 1970's cult classic "Pink Flamingos" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Flamingos) wasn't included.

I'm not familiar with editing wikipedia myself, but I thought you may be interested in an extra edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.195.50 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really my cup of tea and I mostly made minor edits to the article. The list has relatively strict criteria that the films have to appear in reliable sources which list them as an example of the worst films in history.

The Pink Flamingos article notes that the film has received generally positive reviews and currently holds an 80% "fresh" rating in a film review site. It seems to be a candidate for one of the best movies, instead of the worst ones. Dimadick (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about fairy tales

Could you add The Uses of Enchantment to Category:Works about fairy tales ? Thanks ! Stefanomione (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably have already noticed, The Uses of Enchantment is a red link. Are you certain this is the proper name? Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dimadick (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! This WSJ article is fascinating [4] ... One more question ... Could you add Category:Fairy tale scholars to Ruth B. Bottigheimer ? Thanks again ! Stefanomione (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roman biographies

Thank you for helping link up so many biographical articles on Romans over the last three weeks or so. I didn't mean to put you to so much trouble! I was working on linking up all the dictators and magistri equitum this morning, after replacing the old table yesterday (I meant to relink as I did that, but it was getting complicated and I wanted to get it in place), but I got sidetracked on a biography of Appius Claudius Sabinus Regillensis (been meaning to do that for years). Imagine my surprise when I got back and found nearly 100 new edits to the article!

I hope you like the new table format. I was certain it made more sense to have both the dictators and magistri equitum in the same table, and to combine numbers with names for the relatively few who actually had them (I felt that the old table was not very efficient, space-wise). I also thought a light dash of colour would make a long grey table slightly less dull-looking.

Anyway, been thinking of doing this since last week, but your hard work today decided me. Here's the Epic Barnstar, in recognition of your contributions to a history-related project! Feel free to move it to your main page if you prefer. P Aculeius (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was actually surprised to see a long list of office-holders with almost no links to the relevant articles and decided to work on it. Ancient and Medieval history happen to be among my favorite topics, so I often check relevant articles and categories. Dimadick (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, the old version had some links, but only to dictators, since it didn't include magistri equitum, and a lot of those needed to be revised anyway. I only realized that I'd deleted all of them after I replaced that table with the one I'd been working on. But I thought I'd have time to go in and link all the ones with articles, and double-check them along the way. Then you beat me to the punch while I was working on another article! BTW, when I wrote the Barnstar dedication, I didn't think to check your gender. So if "his" work should be "her" work, please change it! P Aculeius (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am male, though I generally avoid writing about myself in Wikipedia. I find that some editors give too much personal information in their talk pages. By the way, the list of Roman dictators seems complete but the magister equitum rank was revived in the 4th century. According to the Magister militum article, there used to be at least 4 magistri equitum across the empire until the rank was merged to that of the magister militum. Dimadick (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that revival a separate magistracy, at least for article creation/separation purposes. I think it's appropriate to mention it in "magister equitum" and "dictator" articles, but I don't think it would be a good idea to list persons who held the office centuries later in what is essentially an article about the institutions of the Republic. If there is such a list, it should be a separate article. P Aculeius (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAR input sought

Hi, I followed here from the Jonathan Wells RFC and I don't believe we interacted before, although your username seemed somehow familiar. In any case, I am reaching out to you for an opinion, as you appear to be experienced with the topics of sourcing and neutrality, and have some interest in historical biographies.

It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the

GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz

; no specialist World War II knowledge is required to be able to contributed to the GAR.

I would welcome a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would also welcome any feedback you'd be willing to share. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have interacted before. First, because I wrote a long message to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history concerning your removal of some sourced content from World War II-related articles, though you did explain that some of the sources used were unreliable to begin with. The second time was when I wrote a text on what the sources say about the limitations of The Myth of the Eastern Front as a source and you asked me if you could use some of my wording in the new article. The third and so far last time was because of your partial revert of my additions of WikiProject banners in the talk page of The Myth of the Eastern Front, though I did not felt it necessary to dispute your call. But that was back in April and we have not interacted since.

I will check to see what are the potential problems with the

Hyazinth_Graf_Strachwitz article, though I am unfamiliar with the subject. Thanks for asking. Dimadick (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for reminding me. I hope that I answered your questions satisfactorily on the first point. On the second one, I did put your content to good use—this reminds me that I still need to expand The Myth article.

Thank you for looking at the Strachwitz article. Nice to have more eyes on the review. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

River categories

I'm startubg a new discussion at

WP:CFD about the naming of river categories. Since you have participated in t least one of the recent discussions in the matterm you nay want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11#Rivers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Women in Serbia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

| Talk 12:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You have over 200k edits and you do that?

In all

WP:AGF

Sorry I really find some of your editing bewildering and perplexiong, as if you might not have english as a first language, or category tagging even understood, in any sense of the word

• WikiProject Years|class=List|importance=Low
• WikiProject Literature|class=list|importance=low
• WikiProject Books|class=List
• WikiProject Novels|class=List|importance=Mid
• WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low

please give your version as to why a year in literature in the 1600s need that?

It would be good to hear your explanation JarrahTree 00:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the same five WikiProjects which cover all the years in literature for the 20th and 21st century, with the same ratings. Did you even bother to check the edits of previous editors? Some of these categories have been rated as lists, others as NA, and several were not even tagged by WikiProject Literature. Some uniformity is desirable.

As a matter of fact, English is not my first language, but I have been using it as a second language for nearly twenty years and I often find myself reading more texts in this language than my primary one. Dimadick (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NP, thanks for your reply, I wasnt so interested as to who in the edit history did what, I was interested in how you explain things, and I dont think uniformity is as important as it is made out. However we have had similar conversations before, I'll leave it. As they say, have a nice day. JarrahTree 05:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 August

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

• On the 1621 in literature page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

false positive, you can report it to my operator

. Thanks,

talk) 00:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Operation Grapes of Wrath has been nominated for discussion

Category:Operation Grapes of Wrath, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Television controversies in the United States

Ugh, can't believe I forgot to put Category:Television controversies in the United States in Category:Television in the United States. Thanks for pointing it out. :) Trivialist (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

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

List of historical period drama films and series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramesses. 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) 10:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie

Jpcase has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for going through all of the new Olympics-Film categories and creating talk pages for them!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Lead too short notices

If you're going to mass tag articles, please at least use an edit summary. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for that previously... JarrahTree 08:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have been blocked for edit warring, but never for adding article notices. In this case all the articles have single-sentence or single paragraph introductions, which is against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK my mistake, my apology - JarrahTree 08:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Yesterday I was going to thank you for your massive continuing the military history tagging that I was going through...

But then you do one of your classics...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Scottish_society

I fail from any level of AGF to see why and how your inclusion of the wider generic projects

• WikiProject Sociology
• WikiProject Anthropology
• WikiProject Organizations
• WikiProject Philosophy

actually has anything to do with scottish society - your freely associating project adding of course is your trademark admittedly, and in between your thousands of good project tagging you do that... I am not going to revert (sorely tempted), or to challenge your reasoning, or ask for explanation, but indicate that it has been noted - and disagreed with. cheers.

If, and if - you had placed Sociology and History and left it at that - that would have made your addition somewhat more erudite and acceptable. JarrahTree 08:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that you were involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Roman and Byzantine military history task force, which is what I have been adding to military articles.

These Wikiprojects are the ones currently covering the main article on society, which means they are the relevant ones. As far as I know WikiProject History does not cover sociology-related topic. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:1630_in_military_history is what I was working on to follow through the era, and saw you had taken up the task further along. Thanks.

The main article on society - does include those projects, but that does not necessarily engage a subject/issue when it is in a phrase/joined with a name of a specific society. Scottish society is best understood by social history that evolves into the current society - the projects at society are not related to a specific society in any way, but looking at generic issues related to that topic. Scotland projects also include earlier eras and even areas, so to simply have sociology and history is more apt. I have studied anthropology at university level, and would not consider it a usable academic entity to help my understand the country of my ancestors, and even less so the projects of organizations or philosophy. Relevance is simply based on someone else who got there before you, it is not necessarily correct, there are many innapropriate project tags in the larger scheme of things.

Please understand I hold your efforts in general, the tens of thousands of talk pages that you have added to as a major contribution to wikipedia. The majority of the 600k + editors who inhabit mainspace and never touch talk page/project space as eds, fail to understand the important functionality of the talk page space and projects for the assessment of articles. If it wasnt for you and a very few others, the imbalance of categories created on main space side with nothing on the talk pages would be more massive. I just find some of your word associations or over-reliance on what you find something related to some subjects which piques my sense of humour more than anything else. So no harm is intended in these occasional visits, just a sense of, 'hey, great about the 100k of your eds, have found just a few don't make any sense' and we move on and get back to it... cheers. JarrahTree 09:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, I add WikiProject tags to talk pages and categories primarily because I have come to believe that many of them are difficult to locate otherwise. For example many articles on ancient Roman people, works, battles, etc. have never been tagged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. This translates to leaving them unrated and practically invisible to people that would otherwise be interested in them or qualified to edit them.

The pages of a WikiProject are often not particularly useful to editing, but are the easiest way to find any related topic. For example Category:WikiProject Film articles currently lists 185,164 pages (including categories) tagged with the Project's banner. I use such pages frequently in order to search for existing articles and categories, which ones are still missing, and what activity is going on in the various recently-edited talk pages. Mere lists can not do this.

And there are a lot of editors who never add talk pages to the articles or categories that they create. Sometimes I find articles that have had no talk page since 2006 or 2007. Wikipedia has become a rather huge project and sometimes simply locating relevant topics requires a lot of searching. Dimadick (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope you understand the compliment that I gave you in my message. There are problems with a very few of your edits in general, and as long as we can keep a reasonable discussion - great! JarrahTree 09:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your compliment and your ability to keep the discussion civil. Sometimes editors who disagree with me resort to personal attacks and name-calling. Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have my assurance if I have some serious issues with some of your tagging, I will simply revert it and explain in good faith my reasoning JarrahTree 09:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]