User talk:DexDor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to OpenStreetMap[edit]

Hi. I didn't know that cross-namespace categorization is wrong. Is there the rule for it? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rezonansowy. "User pages ... do not belong in content categories..." (WP:USERNOCAT) is a relevant guideline.
Generally in wp (categorization) we try to keep a clear separation between enyclopedia content (e.g. articles) and encyclopedia administration (talk pages, user pages, wikiprojects etc). E.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject OpenStreetMap is not in Category:OpenStreetMap. Category:OpenStreetMap (which is below Category:Articles) is for articles (i.e. encyclopedia content) about the topic of OSM.
I've created Category:WikiProject OpenStreetMap and put a few pages in it. I've linked to there from Category talk:OpenStreetMap. The Wikipedians category might also be placed in it. Hope this helps, DexDor (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear DexDor,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

List of World War II firearms[edit]

I see that you reverted my edit to the See also section of the List of World War II firearms article. If the links are intended to point to disambiguation pages (which Type 3 and Type 92 are), then the links are supposed to be piped through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 09:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Niceguyedc. It is very unlikely that those links are intended to point to dab pages - it's more likely that the links were intended to point to articles about firearms introduced shortly after WWI. I.e. WP:INTDABLINK isn't applicable here. It would be better to tag the links as dab-needed or remove the links from the see-also list. DexDor (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Very well. I'll remove them from the list. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 09:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from[edit]

Hello DexDor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The template still transcludes pages here, so while ever it exists the category should. Thank you. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Articles containing video clips[edit]

Dexdor, as you requested at the deletion discussion, I puller Category:Articles containing video clips out of Category:Video. Your comment was absolutely right, these pages do no belong in the Video category, which should be for articles about videos. This should help with the problems you're having. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

CfD of Category:UsesSecondParam[edit]

DexDor, I have speedy deleted this page. As I said on the top of the category page, I created this page for a test and intended to delete it afterwards. So it would have been better for you to contact me directly about it before proposing it for deletion. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, In this case it would have been simpler to contact you directly, but in most cases where I find an odd category that I think should be deleted either (1) the cat creator has left wp so CFD/CSD is needed, (2) the cat creator argues that the category should be kept so CFD/CSD is needed, or (3) the cat creator agrees with deletion but the category still needs to be emptied (which is normally done using an admin-only bot) and deleted by an admin. DexDor (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Something strange happened on page :Category:Scandinavian Mountains[edit]

See Category:Scandinavian Mountains: "<a name="Pages_in_category" id="Pages_in_category"></a>". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Initally I thought it was something specifically related to closing the CfD, but it appears that all category pages now have "<a name="Pages_in_category" id="Pages_in_category"></a>" on the page. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Visible_markup_on_category_pages. DexDor (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Briefly describe[edit]

hi DexDor

Please explain your reverting as a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page.

I’m not shy to asking Briefly describe in changes and keep your advice with you about my native language, and remember that: Wikipedia is a free-access, free content Internet encyclopaedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

please read this article Help:Edit summary

--محمد بوعلام عصامي «Md.Boualam» (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. DexDor (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Ser Amantio di Nicolao's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Template categories[edit]

I wish I could help but I'm not familiar with how those categories work. As far as I'm aware they are auto-generated for some reason by the templates. Might want to bring this up on the template talk page for the automatic taxobox. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dinoguy2. I tried looking at Template:Automatic taxobox etc, but soon got lost (I'm not a template expert), so I'll leave it. DexDor (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Legality of US military attacks on US citizens[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Legality of US military attacks on US citizens, and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I extracted the text from an existing Wikipedia article (see the edit summary). However, it does look like it's been copy-pasted[[1]] from the cited website so I expect the page to be deleted. DexDor (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Public opinion about US drone attacks[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Public opinion about US drone attacks, and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied the material from another wp article, but it does appear to be copyvio so I've replaced that text. DexDor (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


Clownscloudsblahblah Yoor Know Phool
Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental.   Bfpage |leave a message  09:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Arfin Rana Fan Page[edit]

User:Arfin Rana Fan Page, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arfin Rana Fan Page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Arfin Rana Fan Page during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I am not sure why you removed those categories from my page. I am Jain and Gujarati. Request you to explain. [2]. Vishal Bakhai - Works 22:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Vishal - See WP:USERNOCAT. Those categories are for articles. DexDor (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dex, understood. :D. Vishal Bakhai - Works 19:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

John Joshua to Joshua[edit]

Thanks! For some reason the redirect I attempted was taking the new article back to the old one, rather than vice-versa! Grateful for assistance! cheers, Eebahgum (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your feedback is welcome[edit]

Hey, your feedback is welcome here: Talk:Michael Kors (brand), whether the brand should have its own article, separate from the designer. Tinton5 (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Your Edit At Mosquito[edit]

Concerning your edit here, wouldn't the categories of Pathology and Spanish words and phrases still apply, given the important role (female) mosquitoes play as vectors for numerous diseases, as well as the word "mosquito," itself being a Spanish loanword?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Re Pathology - mosquitos spread disease, but so do thousands of other things (and, for that matter, many different species of mosquito). The article is in Category:Insect vectors of human pathogens.
Re Words - wp articles should be categorized by characteristics of their topic (a family of insects), not by characteristics of their title (Spanish words, Words beginning with "M", 8-letter words, Words containing a "q" ...). DexDor (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Add three blocks to the "help out" section[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Community portal/Archive 17. Though there were three Wikipedians embraced my proposal to add three blocks: "Create these articles", "Represent a worldwide view" and "Add historical information" to the "help out" section, the three blocks were not added. Please add them to the section, or at least revive my proposal and encourage other Wikipedians to participate.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. DexDor (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
But you had edited Wikipedia:Community portal before, so I thought that you can make changes to the "help out" section of the portal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
And the section does lack these three blocks: "Create these articles", "Represent a worldwide view" and "Add historical information", and they are all important, so I think that if you think that you can't add these ones without consensus, at least you can revive my proposal in the talk page.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Just curious, DexDor: Why did you remove my surname addition? Is it because there's no article yet, or some other reason? Thanks. Floridasand (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:DAB, WP:DDD ... DexDor (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your redirect of MATTE two years ago was poor[edit]

Dex, by chance I came across the page MATTE I once created, and which you changed to a redirect about two years ago [3]] with the quite WP:BOLD statement: there's no evidence that the acronym/term is notable enough to require its own article, orphan. No evidence? Did you try Google? There's an entire 2008 book on the subject [4], and a lot of other stuff, that even the most superficial search would have revealed I undid your edit. AccidentRecorder (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@AccidentRecorder. The MATTE article (as currently written) is about the acronym "MATTE" - not about the concept that the acronym refers to. I see no evidence that the acronym itself is notable (see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). It may be possible to write an article about, for example, European legislation to prevent major accidents to the environment, but such an article probably shouldn't be titled "MATTE" (WP:JARGON), shouldn't begin "MATTE is an acronym" (WP:REFERS), shouldn't be under Category:Language and should be linked to/from the rest of Wikipedia. In short, the article shouldn't exist in its current form. DexDor (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi, DexDor. I know this is an area that you're interested in, so I'd appreciate your advice. I've long thought that some of the subcategories of Category:Flora of California are unreasonably small in scope, e.g. Category:Flora and fauna of Riverside County, California and Category:Endemic flora of the San Francisco Bay Area. Not to mention most parts of the Category:Natural history of California by region tree act as de facto flora categories, leading to articles on California endemics like Calystegia peirsonii to have a half dozen categories when there should reasonably just be one. I know you and I have different opinions on broader views of the category hierarchy in this regard, but I thought we might both agree that California is a large and varied enough region with plenty of locally native species and endemics that just a single Category:Flora of California would do. You'll also notice that many of these articles are in categories for individual counties or mountains -- I wouldn't think this is appropriate, but I can't think what guideline would govern that. Anyway, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rkitko, "Flora and fauna of ..." categories tend to have a more significant problem (that often occurs with "X and Y" categories) - they are placed under Fauna and/or a Flora category; so, for example, Jurupa Oak is currently (mis)categorized under Category:Fauna of California. Another example is Category:Flora and fauna of Rajasthan. They probably should all be phased out in favour of the "Biota of ..." categories of which there are many.
Regarding geographical areas (and assuming we're talking about species articles etc rather than articles about individual trees etc and we're not talking about endemic categories) then I agree that counties are too small. In fact, I would question whether such categories are appropriate at the level of US state - e.g. Tallgrass prairie and Prunus rivularis are currently categorized for 10 states and see the pile-up of categories on Salix exigua.
I don't, however, see any problem with an endemic category such as Category:Endemic flora of the San Francisco Bay Area - after all, any article should only be in one "Endemic flora of <county>" category and it's pretty defining.
Currently an article like Abies bracteata is in many categories for counties, forests etc - as these aren't even mentioned in the article the category tags could just be removed. The categories themselves are ok - e.g. Category:Los Padres National Forest is appropriate for Mount Pinos etc so probably the best we could do would be to put add category text saying that the category should not contain articles about species etc unless they are endemic to that area (referring to an appropriate guideline/discussion).
The most immediate problem is perhaps stopping User:Look2See1 on his/her overcategorization spree. DexDor (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed reply. I'm glad you noticed Look2See1's contributions; I've been banging my head on that particular wall for years now to no avail. A good deal of the overcategorization you find can be attributed to that editor (e.g. Salix exigua that you mentioned: before and after Look2See1 edited it in 2010). Any added voice noting the problem, whether it be cajoling or pleading, is appreciated.
I see your point on small endemic categories -- there's certainly no issue regarding category clutter there if implemented correctly -- but what's the lower area limit? Some small preserves and parks may have the good fortune to have 10 or more endemics (unlikely, but it's a thought experiment) so as to not run afoul of WP:SMALLCAT. When are these better served by lists than categories?
Thanks for the advice on the county/forest/natural history categories. I would be ok with your suggestion -- for species to not be included in those unless endemic, but current usage seems to be aimed at including all native flora within that category's geographic scope. It will certainly take some doing and I imagine that very few of the articles in these categories mention that particular distribution in the article. I may get to it at some point, but I'm less inclined to begin unless I know it won't be repopulated just as quickly. Anyway, thanks again for the chat. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Rkitko. Re "what's the lower area limit?" for endemics: I've never, afaik, seen an article in more than one endemic category (e.g. in both endemic-mammals-of-<state> and endemic-animals-of-<county>) and it would pass WP:DEFINING (however small the area) so I don't see a problem with endemic categories. For info: I've been concentrating on Europe (where mini-nations like Liechenstein were getting categories); I haven't looked at the US categories much. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User blp delete[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User blp delete. You voted on Category:Unsourced BLP Deletionist Wikipedians, so I thought I'd point you here. Thanks. Gparyani (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Huntingdon (disambiguation)[edit]

You reverted my edit on Huntingdon (disambiguation) with no explanation; why? Keomike (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keomike, MOS:DAB (see also WP:WTAF). DexDor (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Mango edits revert[edit]

kindly reverse my edits into Mango that you have reverted.--Jogi don (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jogi don. No. You should (1) explain the reason for your edits using the edit summary and (2) if you disagree with other editors about the content of an article discuss it on that article's talk page. DexDor (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@ DexDor thanks dear for your valuable feedback, I only edited the relevant linking pages so now I will explain my edits every time I edit into Summary of that article. thanks --Jogi don (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

International Air Cadet Exchange[edit]

Hello DexDor. I would like to know the reasoning behind your removal of two categories from the International Air Cadet Exchange page. (I'll be watching here for a reply.)  Etamni | ✉  10:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Etamni. Category:Royal Australian Air Force (and its subcats) should only contain articles for which the RAAF is a WP:DEFINING characteristic (i.e. articles specifically about the RAAF). Ditto for the USAF category. The IACE is an international organisation with (according to the article) 23 member countries. If it was categorized by each country that is (or has ever been) a member then it would be in (at least) 23 country categories. DexDor (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel that removal of these categories from the IACE article is in error. I've reviewed the Categorization FAQ and WP:DEFINING.
The FAQ states: Categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree of categories, since each article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. This allows multiple categorization schemes to co-exist simultaneously.
WP:DEFINING implies that there needs to be a clear defining characteristic in order to categorize an article in a particular way.
So the real question shouldn't be how many categories the IACE article theoretically might belong to, but whether it belongs within each of the two categories that were removed? I'll focus on the US side of this since I am more familiar with the CAP than with the AAFC. The Civil Air Patrol is a multi-faceted organization. One of their assigned missions is a youth program which is known as the cadet program. The cadet program has numerous special activites, some of which are national in scope. This means that they are available for cadets from any unit of the CAP to participate in (subject to eligibility and space requirements). These programs are referred to as National Cadet Special Activities or NCSAs. One of the NCSAs is the IACE program. To my knowledge, this is the only NCSA with an international scope, but it is the Civil Air Patrol itself, not Wikipedia, that classifies this as one of their NCSAs. To not categorize an article (as an NCSA of the CAP) that is about one of the NCSAs of the CAP, would be silly.
So the question comes down to how do we get there from here? I think that what is missing is an understanding of the relationship between the IACE and the participating (member) organizations. Many years ago, a number of similar programs in different countries formed the organization that is known as IACE. They continue to fund that organization. The delegates from the member organizations vote for officers from amongst their members. On it's own web pages, the IACE officers are identified not only by name, but by the organization they represent and whatever titles or rank they hold there. Sometimes one or more new member organizations join, and sometimes one or more existing member organizations drop out, but ultimately, the IACE organization is defined by its member organizations and the activites that are being promoted. Based on this, I believe that the categorization should be restored.  Etamni | ✉  00:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Etamni, 1. Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization is rather badly written and not exactly consistent with, for example, Wikipedia:Categorization which makes clear that categories are a hierarchical structure (e.g. "Since all categories form part of a hierarchy..."). A good example of an inconsistency is that the FAQ says "It is possible to construct loops in the category space...", whereas WP:SUBCAT says "Category chains formed by parent-child relationships should never form closed loops ....". IMO the FAQ page needs a major overhaul.
2. (Assuming it's sufficiently notable) then Wikipedia can have a list of NCSAs. There is such a list (for 2008) at List of National Cadet Special Activities and for 2009 here. Lists can contain entries such as "Air Force Space Command Familiarization Course" whereas if you try to construct a list of NCSAs (for a particular year?) in category space you would soon hit the problem that you can't put the Air Force Space Command article under a CAP category. Lists and categories are different things.
3. It may be true that "the IACE organization is defined by its member organizations", but the defining characteristics (in the sense that we use that term in categorization) of the IACE are things like it's an international organisation and it's concerned with air force cadets. Comparable organisations (e.g. NATO Tiger Association or FIFA) are not generally categorized by their members. Another example is World Organization of the Scout Movement - that article isn't placed under dozens of "Scouting in <country>" categories. DexDor (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ignoring what's there now (the entire subject of CAP needs significant cleanup, which I'm working on), in your opinion, what types of items (assuming sufficient notability) belong in Category:National Cadet Special Activities of the Civil Air Patrol?  Etamni | ✉  01:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Etamni, if an article is specifically about a NCSA then it belongs in the category, otherwise it probably doesn't. So, for example, National Blue Beret probably (I'm not an expert in NCSA - just going on what the article says) does, but United States Space Camp doesn't (NCSA is just one of the ways it's used). DexDor (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll accept that for now. Reviewing (again) the guidelines on categorization, I think that what is needed (but I'm not going to write it at the moment) is an "in-between" article that explains the CAP participation in the IACE program. That article would be part of the category. But, you've done the same thing to another article, and this time CAP is a defining characteristic of the subject of the article. I'm referring to the Falcon Virgo article. Perhaps the article doesn't make it clear, but regardless of the US military resources participating in any particular Falcon Virgo exercise, the CAP always plays the part of the OPFOR in the exercises. If the US government is completing similar exercises without the CAP, they are not called Falcon Virgo. (Your other changes to that article were spot-on perfect, btw; my only issue is the removal of the cat.)  Etamni | ✉  05:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Etamni, If CAP always play the OPFOR (and that's stated in the article) then that makes it less unreasonable for that article to be in the CAP category. If it's possible that in future years the OPFOR in Falcon Virgo could be played by another organisation then (IMO) the FV article shouldn't be in the CAP category (although I might not remove it if another editor placed it there). Note: Whether or not CAP and FV are closely linked by categorization they can/should be linked by normal links in article text. DexDor (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll work on finding appropriate sources. The Falcon Virgo article has been on my mental to-do list for a while now -- as are other CAP articles.  Etamni | ✉  05:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)