User talk:Dimadick

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

Contents

Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.pngThis user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Category:Film scores by Don Davis has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Film scores by Don Davis, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

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

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

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

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

Task force[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

just a query[edit]

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

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

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

problem[edit]

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

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

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

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

Book of Esther[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women in Burkina Faso listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

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

Category:Films about hebephilia[edit]

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

Project on Lumièrè Shortfilm[edit]

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

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


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

Your recent edits all need to be reverted and discussed first[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phoenicia establishment[edit]

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

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

White savior narrative in film[edit]

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Dimadick. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Dimadick. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

List of United States Presidential firsts[edit]

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Santas's Workshop2.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

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

Falklands War[edit]

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

Talk:David Seaman (journalist)[edit]

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

WP:OVERLINK[edit]

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

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

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

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Merry, merry![edit]

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

Merry Christmas and happy holidays![edit]

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

catholicism[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fictional characters[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internment of Italian Americans[edit]

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

New Wikiproject![edit]

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

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

Hughes[edit]

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

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

Category:Jewish people of World War II has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Jewish people of World War II, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Arguablefool (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:1st century in Jerusalem has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:1st century in Jerusalem, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GreyShark (dibra) 20:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OK[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Late antiquity[edit]

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

My bad[edit]

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

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

Category talk:European Court of Human Rights cases involving Switzerland[edit]

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

Thanks for noticing and alerting me.

Category:555 crimes has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:555 crimes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Category Marvel Comics[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

Curious question?[edit]

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

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

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

::Why am I ignoring your Talk page complaint?

Ayoureditwasalreadyrevertedbysomebodyelse
BthedraftaswrittenclearlyviolatesBLP
Citspossibleyouarerightbutijustdontcare
Dimadick

Factchecker_atyourservice 21:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Kala, Queen of the Netherworld1.jpg[edit]

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

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

Lerna[edit]

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

Gwynnes Limited[edit]

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

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

Category:Buddhists by period has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Buddhists by period, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary History Style Edit[edit]

Dear Dima,

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

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

What is this?[edit]

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

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

Necromania[edit]

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

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

Toast sandwich[edit]

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

19th century in Great Britain[edit]

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

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

Birth Of The 10th[edit]

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

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

Category:7th millennium BC in Greece has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:7th millennium BC in Greece, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Category:5th millennium BC in fiction has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:5th millennium BC in fiction, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

?[edit]

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

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

etc.

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

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

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

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

Same issue[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidlines on Miramax movies.[edit]

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

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

Merger discussion for Second Korean War[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

WP:SKEPTIC tags[edit]

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

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

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Dimadick.

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

have a safe holiday season[edit]

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Dimadick. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Racism[edit]

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

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

December 2017[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jefferson Davis Park, WikiProjects[edit]

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

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

Happy Holidays[edit]

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

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

RfC at Robert E. Lee[edit]

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

Snopes[edit]

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

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg

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

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

Merry Christmas![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

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

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

HNY[edit]

Mexico City New Years 2013! (8333128248).jpg Happy New Year!

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

Nomination of Jane Musoke-Nteyafas for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria[edit]

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman–Sasanian War (421–422), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Status quo ante (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speeedily rename a category[edit]

Category:4th-century Roman sculpture to Category:4th-century Roman sculptures Hugo999 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion[edit]

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

WikiProject Ageing and culture[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Sculpture[edit]

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

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

Connie Corleone[edit]

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


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

3rr[edit]

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

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

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

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

HIAG‎[edit]

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

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

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

References

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

Vandalism[edit]

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

John Hagelin[edit]

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

Peacedove.svg

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

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 6[edit]

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

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

Copyright violations...[edit]

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 13[edit]

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

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

German war effort arbitration case opened[edit]

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

Proposal to rename category "12th-century Byzantine theologians"[edit]

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

Re-title "Enlightenment in Spain"[edit]

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

In der Maur[edit]

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

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

Categories[edit]

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

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

Category:Clerici vagantes has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Clerici vagantes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Duck nobility

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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

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

1st century Roman women[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification[edit]

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

Epistle to Titus[edit]

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

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

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

historical negationism[edit]

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

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

Kindergarten Cop[edit]

Did you mean to take

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

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

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

Avidius Cassius[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

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

Edit summary content is visible in:

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed[edit]

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee,

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

Matilda[edit]

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

August 2018[edit]

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

Plurals[edit]

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

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

Category:Entering Heaven alive has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Entering Heaven alive, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. regentspark (comment) 13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Split "German resistance to Nazism" into articles titled "German opposition to Nazism" and "German resistance to Hitler"?[edit]

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

Nice work on Passenger to Frankfurt[edit]

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

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

J W Dunne[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foo in fiction[edit]

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

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