User talk:Dimadick/Archive 3

importScript( 'User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js' ); // Backlink: User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver

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

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)[reply]

Hi

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Hi. i was just bored and saw this, and i agree with you. 71.67.61.206 (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Task force

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

just a query

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

problem

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Book of Esther

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Women in Burkina Faso listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

Category:Films about hebephilia

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

Project on Lumièrè Shortfilm

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 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here it is: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Thelmadatter/Procession_at_Seville_and_bullfighting_scenes Sorry and thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofia Hnidey (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits all need to be reverted and discussed first

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Phoenicia establishment

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So then perhaps you should have removed the 12th-century category? Debresser (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White savior narrative in film

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)[reply]

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

List of United States Presidential firsts

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)[reply]

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

⚠

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)[reply]

Falklands War

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. W C M_email 21:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David Seaman (journalist)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry, merry!

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

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Hello Dimadick: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 14:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

catholicism

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well the ones i have watched have been almost inactive as inactive projects... JarrahTree 06:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fictional characters

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay If so, then there's a lot of work to be done. No reason to make more of it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see your suggested guideline introducing problems where none previously existed. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry, but I'm here attempting to contact you about a completely different subject. I'm the person who made changes yesterday to the introduction in the article of (The Flintstone Kids). It looked like you agreed with changes I made there, that's why I'm here to ask you to do a favor related to this issue. What happened is that today I just made some other changes in the articles of the main four characters of the Flintstones series. I eliminated the parts in the biographies sections on the those articles that made references to their lives the in the Flitstones Kids, stating that they weren't canon to the original show. Ten minutes later, some other registered user which seemed that he was an administrator, didn't accept my edits on the Fred Flintstones article and reverted the page to its previous status with making fun of the reasons of my edits. He thought it was ridicules to discuss the canonization within The Flintstones! Whether, because of ignorance or whatever ideas he'd had. Now, all what I'm asking you for as a user who's specialized in cartoon stuff is to return back those edits I made to the article. Well, of course if you agree with them after you check on them. Thanks.92.99.182.43 (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources did you use? He/she may have rejected your edits on OR grounds. Dimadick (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internment of Italian Americans

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)[reply]

New Wikiproject!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hughes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

OK

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Late antiquity

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)[reply]

My bad

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category talk:European Court of Human Rights cases involving Switzerland

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)[reply]

Thanks for noticing and alerting me.

Category:555 crimes has been nominated for discussion

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)[reply]

Category Marvel Comics

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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)[reply]

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)[reply]

Curious question?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Lerna

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)[reply]

Gwynnes Limited

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)[reply]

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

Category:Buddhists by period has been nominated for discussion

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)[reply]

Contemporary History Style 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)[reply]

What is this?

. . . 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Necromania

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Toast sandwich

DoctorWho42 has given you a Toast sandwich! Bread (🍞), toast (🔥), and bread (🍞) promotes WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toast sandwiches are wonderfully delicious! They are made by putting a thin slice of toast between two thin slices of bread with a layer of butter, and adding salt and pepper to taste. Its origins can be traced to the Victorian years. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a toast sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of toast sandwiches by adding {{subst:Toast sandwich for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 18:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19th century in Great Britain

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)[reply]

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

Birth Of The 10th

It's Technically a TV Special, not a film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourlaxers (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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)[reply]

?

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)[reply]

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.

Category:Warner Bros. films is defined as "films whose producer and/or main distributor was Warner Bros."
Category:Disney films is defined as "all films (theatrical, direct-to-video, television, etc.) produced and/or released by The Walt Disney Company."
Category:Universal Pictures films is defined as "for films produced and/or released by Universal Pictures."

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Same issue

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Guidlines on Miramax movies.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merger discussion for Second Korean War

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)[reply]

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

A barnstar for you!

	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)[reply]

WP:SKEPTIC tags

Thanks for your work tagging relevant categories. —Paleo Neonate – 18:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

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)[reply]

have a safe holiday season

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)[reply]

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Racism

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)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

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:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

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.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

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)[reply]

December 2017

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Jefferson Davis Park, WikiProjects

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Happy Holidays

	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)[reply]

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

RfC at Robert E. Lee

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)[reply]

Snopes

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

Seasons' Greetings

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

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

Merry Christmas!

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)[reply]

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

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —Paleo Neonate – 13:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination of Jane Musoke-Nteyafas for deletion

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)[reply]

Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

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)[reply]

Please see my proposal to speeedily rename a category

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

Your opinion

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.f^Talk 18:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ageing and culture

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiProject Sculpture

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)[reply]

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

Connie Corleone

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

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)[reply]

3rr

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

HIAG

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference plant was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ 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).
^ Cite error: The named reference Holocaust: Gay activists press for German apology was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference international was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference homosexuals was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Neander, Biedron. "Homosexuals. A Separate Category of Prisoners". Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum. Retrieved August 10, 2013.

Vandalism

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)[reply]

John Hagelin

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

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)[reply]

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

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)[reply]

Copyright violations...

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! --Jayron 32 18:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Jayron 32 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

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)[reply]

German war effort arbitration case opened

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Re-title "Enlightenment in Spain"

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[reply]

In der Maur

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Clerici vagantes has been nominated for discussion

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)[reply]

Precious

Duck nobility

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

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

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1959 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1st century Roman women

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Surely then in cases like this https://wiki.riteme.site/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notification

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)[reply]

Epistle to Titus

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 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(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, —Paleo Neonate – 05:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

historical negationism

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kindergarten Cop

Did you mean to take

Angela Bassett as Stewardess

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

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)[reply]

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

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)[reply]

Avidius Cassius

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

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

Edit summary content is visible in:

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

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

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:

For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
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.
Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
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.
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)[reply]

Matilda

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

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)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)[reply]

August 2018

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 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)}}. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Category:Entering Heaven alive has been nominated for discussion

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Nice work on Passenger to Frankfurt

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

J W Dunne

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)][reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No offense, but the term scientist includes the social sciences.Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Foo in fiction

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)[reply]

Damn, that was quick! :) Thanks for the support! DonIago (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

please stop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

category space ? wow - thats ripe!

hahahaha - thats it you havent changed all these years - have fun. JarrahTree 07:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So thank you for your work in the Australian project your work is appreciated. as for the rest, pity you still have the element of combatant all this time in to your massive positive contribution. JarrahTree 08:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't have it, I would have quit Wikipedia years ago. There are many people willing to step all over you in this website. Dimadick (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

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

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

Wish

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

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

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

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

plants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

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

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

Xerxes I

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

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

Edit conflicts

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

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

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

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

removed your vote

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

Comicsgate

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

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

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

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

Category:17th-century Dukes of Normandy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic canard

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

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

WikiProjects on Promised Land

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

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

"The imagery of the "Promised Land" was invoked in African-American spirituals as heaven or paradise and as an escape from slavery, which can often only be reached by death. The imagery and term have also been used in popular culture (see Promised Land (disambiguation)), sermons and in speeches, such as the "I've Been to the Mountaintop" (1968) speech by Martin Luther King Jr.". Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:17th-century Jacobite pretenders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:19th-century Jacobite pretenders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:20th-century Jacobite pretenders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:21st-century Jacobite pretenders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:16th-century Lords Protector of England, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

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

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

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

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

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

Edit summary content is visible in:

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

Discussion at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic

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

Edit-warring again

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

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

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

AfD

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

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

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

Happy Holidays!

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

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

Delusions and C P Complex

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

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

Sasanian monarchs

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

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

Leading an (Turkic/Chinese) army doesn't make you a monarch. They were princes at best, not monarchs. The Sasanian Empire fell in 651. I'm gonna revert the articles back to their original state. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leading your own court and maintaining a government does. Dimadick (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding the idea of a monarch. The last Sasanian king was Yazdegerd III, look it up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles keep contradicting you. Dimadick (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I bet they do, it's not like I created/expanded over half of them. So.. the last Sasanian king wasn't Yazdegerd III? Alright mate, the Roman republic didn't fall in 27 BC. See what I'm doing? Making stuff up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:8th-century Sasanian monarchs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your over all project tagging is amazing and to be commended

your assumed intention to add 'geography' project tags to every country project on the planet to appease your interpretation of the geography tag - I believe is misguided - as if you do it for one country it is creating an inconsistency - and as a consequence should be discouraged unless you are doing every one of the country projects on wikipedia - otherwise the 'undue' aspect of application of something raises the question - why one country - why not all - what is the difference between the projects/countries?

you have in the past regularly been reverted for hundreds of edits that showed a misunderstanding of meanings of words - why should the geography project actually be added when there are already country project and in most cases subdivision tags added? there is simply nothing in wikipedia that says 'x project' must be added - surely it is really in the end your interpretation as to whether it is suitable to add it. Why not just leave the project tag for the country as the sufficient project tag?

the comment about assessment - is that many projects are added but do not have assessments made - which 'breaks down' the whole point of having project tags - if the assessments are not actually down - my apology I was not specifically referring to geography as an under-assessed project - but the whole project of wikipedia - has a massive backlog of unassessed articles

you clearly have stated as time as passed a need to maintain an aggressive and assertive stance on your editing. I have no intention of dealing with your problems - if you want to add geography project to every country project on wikipedia, so be it - I simply am stating my point of view (as I have a few times in the years we have interacted) that I believe as a 10 year plus editor on the Indonesian project - I see no reason to see why - every country division in Indonesia needs to be part of the geography project,

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

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

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

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

Category:New Century Foundation has been nominated for discussion

Category:New Century Foundation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corn

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

Christmas films

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

Thank you for clarifying your rationale for adding Die Hard. Obviously using an uncited entry in a list article would fall afoul of WP:CIRCULAR in any case. DonIago (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have sources calling it one of the best Christmas films. I added a reference to the list. Dimadick (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. Sorry about the oversight. Thanks for adding in the ref. DonIago (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing in Film

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

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

What sort of sources do you want? Confirmation that Eddie Murphy, Michael Jackson and Samuel L. Jackson aren't "white"? Confirmation that they appeared in the films listed? This is common knowledge, do you disagree with these statements? ...I'll see about adding more sources when I have some spare time I guess, unless you feel like adding them for me. Walterblue222 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that confirm that these were cases of color-blind casting and that they are relevant to the main topic of the article. We can not produce OR here, we need sources making the connections for us. Dimadick (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't specifically state that these were cases of color-blind casting, but rather that the statement "one rarely sees, for example, an African American, Latino, or Asian actor cast as a white character" is verifiably false, as displayed in the examples given. These weren't color-blind castings in my opinion, they were specifically black-washed roles (like "white-washed", except there isn't a page for "black-washed", it seems because of anti-white/pro-black racism)... Walterblue222 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of categories

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

Germanic peoples

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

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

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

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

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

Dimadick you are on 3R on the Germanic Peoples article for a word preference. Let us please break that cycle. Can I please request that you now post your rationale on the talk page of that article, in a new section? Some points to consider:

The article in question is not a specialist article on branching of christianity, and in the sources relevant to Germanic peoples, and the history of Europe generally, Catholic-derived terms are surely the norm by far for the western European Rome-centred "mainstream" church?
To the extent that Catholicism is an anachronism here so is Chalcedonism, surely? Indeed, no one in this period was speaking English to being with. What we are looking for is a term used by the relevant historians, and widely understood.
Whatever words specialists in the history of christianity use, "catholicism" is not a "wrong" word, and it is used in most academic sources for the creed in question. (For example the one Clovis supposedly joined.) Do you disagree?

Do you disagree with any of these three points?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the talk page section on the article talk page. Will you please address these points and any others there?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick wrote: "(assuming they have any credentials)"

Let's see about your FAILS VERIFIABILITY claim--I will just select one for instance: Walter Pohl who has his own Wiki article. Also here is his page at the University of Vienna: Professor Walter Pohl Look at that exhaustive list of publications and then restate your claims again. I haven't the time for such antagonistic drivel. Your efforts don't seem constructive in any way as they do not correspond to the claims of the text. Also, where is your irrefutable proof that this claim of Chalcedonianism trumps scholarship over the use of the term Catholic? I've seen nothing other than your opinion. As far as I am concerned, you have nothing to stand on whatsoever. --Obenritter (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent edits about Lucifer

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

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

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

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

In classical mythology, Lucifer ("light-bringer" in Latin) was the name of the planet Venus, though it was often personified as a male figure bearing a torch. The Greek name for this planet was variously Phosphoros (also meaning "light-bringer") or Heosphoros (meaning "dawn-bringer").^[1] Lucifer was said to be "the fabled son of Aurora^[2] and Cephalus, and father of Ceyx". He was often presented in poetry as heralding the dawn.^[1]
The second century Roman mythographer Pseudo-Hyginus said of the planet:^[3]

"The fourth star is that of Venus, Luciferus by name. Some say it is Juno's. In many tales it is recorded that it is called Hesperus, too. It seems to be the largest of all stars. Some have said it represents the son of Aurora and Cephalus, who surpassed many in beauty, so that he even vied with Venus, and, as Eratosthenes says, for this reason it is called the star of Venus. It is visible both at dawn and sunset, and so properly has been called both Luciferus and Hesperus."

Ovid, in his first century epic Metamorphoses, describes Lucifer as ordering the heavens:^[4]

"Aurora, watchful in the reddening dawn, threw wide her crimson doors and rose-filled halls; the Stellae took flight, in marshaled order set by Lucifer who left his station last."

In the classical Roman period, Lucifer was not typically regarded as a deity and had few, if any, myths,^[1] though the planet was associated with various deities and often poetically personified. Cicero pointed out that "You say that Sol the Sun and Luna the Moon are deities, and the Greeks identify the former with Apollo and the latter with Diana. But if Luna (the Moon) is a goddess, then Lucifer (the Morning-Star) also and the rest of the Wandering Stars (Stellae Errantes) will have to be counted gods; and if so, then the Fixed Stars (Stellae Inerrantes) as well."^[5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"However, unlike the English word, the Latin word was not used exclusively in this way and was applied to others also, including Jesus: the Latin (Vulgate) text of Revelation 22:16 (where English translations refer to Jesus as "the bright morning star") has stella matutina, not lucifer, but the term lucifer is applied to Jesus in the Easter Exultet and in a hymn by Hilary of Poitiers that contains the phrase: "Tu verus mundi lucifer" (You are the true light bringer of the world).^[6]"
"John Calvin said: "The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians."^[7] Martin Luther also considered it a gross error to refer this verse to the devil.^[8] Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

already suspected yuo think this way. It is NOT about your Biblical exegesis. Fact is, that traditionally, Lucifer is a fallenangel or demon, and obviously,prrofs you yourself know that. This makes it close to vandalism. Wikipedia is NOT about words, but about concepts. I am well aware of that Jesus is called "Lucifer" in the Bible, but what doesn't mean you can merge them on your own. Your further stated, that your edits are agains the article by stating, that the lead does not reflect your edits. BUt I have another idea. Since it seems your focus here is about "Phosphorus", move the Category to Phosphorus, remove the fallen angel category, than add Lucifer and Satan. But "Lucifer" is something entirely else, even they might have the same name.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"that the lead does not reflect your edits." You are misreading this. I stated that the lead the article does not properly summarize the body of the article. Which is a violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
- Lucifer is not Satan, not a fallen angel, not a demon. He is simply a mythological deity which name was appropriated in Christian texts. Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have added a disambiguation page for Lucifer such as Lucifer (Fallen angel in Christianity) and Lucifer (Greek deity) and adding only the Greek Pantheon into the group. But you added Lucifer to "fallen angels". I objected that above, but you only repeat that I already refused, because it is missing the point.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that WP:INUNIVERSE is apt guidance here, except it does not quite address the question already raised: WHICH UNIVERSE? Since "Lucifer" is many things to many people, a crossover character if you will, this dispute will not be resolved by stubborn adherence to "yes he is, no he isn't". So I suggest to move to Talk:Lucifer as this is the topic at hand, and we need to discuss just how many different identities can be imputed here, or if we need to fork Lucifer into Lucifer in Christianity and Lucifer in Greek mythology and Lucifer in Islam ad nauseam. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come again? Where do you see an Islam section in the article? Dimadick (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this whole bit some kind of exercise in Frege's puzzles? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a standard category for a mythological figure. And I am still puzzled why you think that Lucifer is an Islamic figure. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Dispute Resolution

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

I would like to put in some words for this dispute, but it would be preferable if we could identify a centralized location for the discussion, rather than this user talk page and ANI, which are both inappropriate. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you suggest? Dimadick (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd like to have a nice RFC on categories in general and how they are routinely abused and abandoned in articles, vis-a-vis the requirements to have them correspond to a reliable source as well as something in the article explaining why it belongs to each category - WP:CATV. It seems they get this going and coming: from people who delete prose from articles and leave dangling categories, as well as people who tag articles with tangential categories without bothering to write the necessary explanation. We've got a case of the latter here. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

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

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

Year of release

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

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

4 and 10

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

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

The cross sign occurs trivially in tally marks, and develops into a number symbol independently in the Roman numerals (X "ten"), the Chinese rod numerals (十 "ten") and the Brahmi numerals ("four", whence the numeral 4). In the Phoenician alphabet and derived scripts, the cross symbol represented the phoneme /t/, i.e. the letter taw, which is the historical predecessor of Latin T. The letter name taw means "mark", presumably continuing the Egyptian hieroglyph "two crossed sticks" (Gardiner Z9).^[1] Dimadick (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite wrong. The numeral 4, and the tally mark for 10, are cross symbols. They have separate articles than the numbers 4 and 10. I'm reverting. Please justify on the relevant talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 17 June 2015. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

Category:Measles outbreaks

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

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

Categorization: Defining characteristic

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

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

SPI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abh9850. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:21st-century heads of state of France, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — JFG ^talk 08:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!^Ol^Ja 19:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tombs of the Doges of Venice

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

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

The biographies, or sources on the key churches, should provide most of it. Actually starting a commons category would be a good start/alternative - see eg commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/:Category:Interior of Santi Giovanni e Paolo (Venice) - Tombs with sub-cats of over a dozen. of course we have List of Doges of Venice - I'd imagine surviving tombs don't start until say the 13th century. Enrico Dandolo, d. 1205, is rather an outlier. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have information and a photo on Dandolo's tomb, but not an actual article: "Dandolo died in 1205 and was buried in June in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.^[1] He was the only person to be buried there.^[2] In the 19th century an Italian restoration team placed a cenotaph marker near the probable location, which is still visible today. The marker is frequently mistaken by tourists as being a medieval marker of the actual tomb of the doge. The real tomb was destroyed by the Ottomans after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 and subsequent conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque.^[1]^[3]Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't recall seeing actual articles on any of them, although many are major works. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

WikiProjects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject priority assessments states" If importance values are applied within a specific project, these only reflect the perceived importance to that project. An article judged to be "Top-Importance" in one WikiProject's context may be only "Low-Importance" for another WikiProject."

WP:Reliable sources determine their link to the civil rights movement, not content on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia states, "Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source) as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased."

Please consider relying upon active members of WikiProjects to determine the "importance" parameter. Mitchumch (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

You made an inaccurate assessment in the WikiProject I am active in. That parameter is a tool for WikiProjects. You are only causing more work for active members like me to do. I had to revert your edits. You need to have some knowledge of the topic in reliable sources to make that determination. You only relied upon incomplete, possibly inaccurate and biased, articles to make that determination. Mitchumch (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are rated, and often deleted, based on current content. Not on what sources may be out there. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter "class" is rated based on the state of the article. That parameter could more easily be done by any one. The parameter "importance" is not as easy to rate as the "class" parameter, because it's based on reliable sources.

WikiProjects may develop their own standards to assist in assessment. See WP:MEDIMP as an example. The WikiProject Civil Rights Movement was created in February 2018. That project is still being developed and the "importance" guidelines have yet to be written. Mitchumch (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel from Cornwall

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

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

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

I am often pleasantly surprised by your work on British-related categories, with even minor categories propely bannered and easy to locate. You are doing a great job. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I just wish that the island of Britain had a stable administrative geography. Then I could have implemented something like WP:IECATNAVP, whose resulting {{AllIrelandByCountyCatNav}} can be seen on any by-county Irish category, e.g. Category:People from County Sligo or Category:Religious buildings and structures in County Mayo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Second Swedish Crusade has been nominated for discussion

Category:Second Swedish Crusade, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

either one or all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology: "Articles on interdisciplinary issues and terms (such as history of sociology, family, traditions or peace movement) should be included." ... "we could however create more specialized articles, so topics like the social construction of the British royal family, sociology of fashion or sociology of clothing may get covered."
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups: "The scope of the project also extends to such Ancillary articles as Ethnic group or Self-determination. In those cases we do not so much expect to provide guidelines as simply to provide the informed input of a group of people who have been significantly involved in writing in Wikipedia about ethnicity." Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggested you were both "correct". I can just see a few editors disapproving of mass changes without a consensus being reached. We've been down this road before. I don't even recall the outcome other than both sides of the argument(s) agreeing to disagree to be honest. I haven't been around in a while but take my word, location articles are a hot bed here when mass changes hit the radar. -- Longhair\^talk 08:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

totally missing the point - Australian places already exists - has exactly the came criterion as 'cities' and by that some level of respect for the editors who invested times and energy in the australian project who set it up, there is not need to add 'cities' when the places project exists - a very simply request to leave off adding a duplicate project that is basicallly redundant in the face of the existing project. JarrahTree 08:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JarrahTree (talk · contribs) is kinda right you know... AusPlaces WP has narrower focus right on point here. With your addition of the Cities WP banner it'd be almost like tagging every song article with the Music WP banner if such a thing exists. That's my view anyway. -- Longhair\^talk 09:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example. We don't have a WikiProject Music, but we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs which is indeed supposed to cover every song article. I never figured why we have dozens of WikiProjects on music genres, albums, songs, musicians, and music organs, but not a general scope WikiProject on music. It reminds me of an old Greek joke, concerning the employement of a large team of people to perform a task that typically needs only one person. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a bad example but you got my point. On one hand, tagging might bring more editors to the article. On the other, it's overtagging. I see both sides. Nobody is right or wrong here, but again, mass tagging has pissed many off before. Bring it up on the noticeboard if you can't find middle ground here because I see one in disagreement here already and I bet there's likely more. I don't care either way... I've just been around long enough to know where this will usually end up... -- Longhair\^talk 09:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

very telling - such a personal revelation - whatabout ships, milhist, biography - they are massive - so they have components - task forces or whatever - they actually try to compartmentalise components - just like music -

as I have said over the years - your contribution to wikipedia is extrarodinarilyy valuable - so very few people here on wiki0edia english have the consistency or longetivity to actually go through all the empty talk pages - and there you go making sure there are the projects are in there. I am simply trying to say, there is no need whatsoever for cities to expand and duplicate into the australian project- we already have the places project - which does actually cover all human settlements already, I dont think for whatever reason you actually getting that. JarrahTree 09:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Category:5th-century French people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French Directorate

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

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

The Skeleton Dance reversion

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

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

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

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction set in Armorica has been nominated for discussion

Category:Fiction set in Armorica, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the project indexes

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

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

Notice

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

I am very disappointed.

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

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

Renaming of categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Clinton, 3rd Earl of Lincoln.

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

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

Thomas Clinton, 3rd Earl of Lincoln, again.

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

June 2019

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

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

I noticed your username as well, and thought to check here first. You may want to add the explanation on your userpage and avoid repeated questions! Jay (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

A tag has been placed on Category:6th-century Kings of Sardinia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

A tag has been placed on Category:15th-century Spanish monarchs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Storm (2016 film)

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

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

Common era has nothing to do with gregorian or julian calendar

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fascism talk page

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

June 2019

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

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

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

Category:8th-century Holy Roman Emperors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi,

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

Talk:Ronald Reagan#rfc 85A761C

Thanks,

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

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

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

Public holidays

Evening it was because you took out the following.

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

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

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

Category:5th-century Greek people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9th-century Kings of Germany has been nominated for discussion

Category:9th-century Kings of Germany, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1945 in Judaism

A tag has been placed on Category:1945 in Judaism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American Dad! (season 16) episodes

A tag has been placed on Category:American Dad! (season 16) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1945 in Judaism has been nominated for discussion

Category:1945 in Judaism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn

Hi Dimadick I don't understand this edit. The Category:People from Brooklyn by neighborhood contains a lot of people-from-neighborhood categories that were visible before but now are 'hidden'. It seems to me that this category should be prominently searchable at the top of the 3 category pages it is located in for easier reference, instead of buried below. While the above is true for all 3 categories, it seems especially true for Category:People by New York City neighborhood, where an entire city category is buried among individual neighborhoods. StonyBrook (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it easier to locate categories when I search for them alphabetically, instead of concentrating everything at the top of a parent category. Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick I may not agree with you, but for now at least I think I can understand. I anticipate that the whole business will be less cluttered once work is completed on all the other neighborhoods of New York City. And thanks for all your tidying up, it's appreciated. StonyBrook (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1430s in military history

A tag has been placed on Category:1430s in military history requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1420s in military history

A tag has been placed on Category:1420s in military history requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural depictions of Constantine III of Scotland" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cultural depictions of Constantine III of Scotland. Since you had some involvement with the Cultural depictions of Constantine III of Scotland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fiction set in the 24th century BC

A tag has been placed on Category:Fiction set in the 24th century BC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fiction set in the 30th century BC

A tag has been placed on Category:Fiction set in the 30th century BC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Random dinosaur media

Hi, it has been decided by consensus at the dinosaur project that random media that feature dinosaurs and do not treat them scientifically should not be covered by the project. You wouldn't tag films like Bambi or Dumbo with the mammal or animal projects either. So please do not re-add the tag, it will be reverted. You can add the articles to something pop cultural like WP:WikiProject Animals in media. FunkMonk (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the Project Scope contradicts your assessment: "this project does not cover non-dinosaurian prehistoric animals such as pterosaurs and mammoths, which are instead covered by WikiProject Palaeontology. Articles about pop-cultural phenomena that are only trivially associated with dinosaurs are not covered by this project; coverage is restricted to cultural subjects that are significant to how dinosaurs have been generally perceived and that treat them scientifically, such as for example the Jurassic Park or Walking With Dinosaurs franchises." Dimadick (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't?

Articles about pop-cultural phenomena that are only trivially associated with dinosaurs are not covered by this project

2001:569:782B:7A00:D401:94DB:74C0:775A (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park has a clear scientific angle and had a huge impact on how the public sees dinosaurs (exposing the masses to various new scientific ideas), and Walking With Dinosaurs is basically a documentary. It isn't just games or films featuring dinosaurs as characters or random monsters. FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're Invited!

Hello Dimadick/Archive 3! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women in music, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women music on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Political parties established in 1820

A tag has been placed on Category:Political parties established in 1820 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:6th century in Greece

A tag has been placed on Category:6th century in Greece requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1st-century introductions

A tag has been placed on Category:1st-century introductions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British colonels

Hey, I´ve seen you created this category and populated it with plenty of entries. However many of those reached military rank far above that of Colonel. As you yourself stated the category is intended for those with Colonel as highest, and actual, rank. Problem may stem from the extensive use of ceremonial positions like Colonel-in-Chief, Colonel of the Regiment and Honorary Colonel on behalf of the British. There are plenty of real Colonels available so I can only advise to take a double look before adding. Just for the records. Anyway, thanks for your work. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was mostly following the succession box about Colonels of specific regiments. Dimadick (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. Whoever made them usually uses those ceremonial Colonels for that. ...GELongstreet (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1st-century introductions

A tag has been placed on Category:1st-century introductions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Category:1st-century introductions, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category was emptied by another user, in a dispute for another article. This is not the job of the administrators. Dimadick (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Film series introduced in 1966

A tag has been placed on Category:Film series introduced in 1966 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in the 20th century

A tag has been placed on Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in the 20th century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in the 21st century

A tag has been placed on Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in the 21st century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9th-century Holy Roman Emperors has been nominated for discussion

Category:9th-century Holy Roman Emperors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 9 page

Judging by the way the current version of the page Channel 9 (Greece) looks like, in what class would you rate it in its talk page? NickBlamp (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Start-Class at best. It has many citations, but whether these sources are reliable is questionable. Dimadick (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Weapons and ammunition introductions by century

A tag has been placed on Category:Weapons and ammunition introductions by century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What?

I simply reverted a bad edit from before to their original state. They were sourced, but with bad sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.29.138.123 (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which source do you consider unreliable? Dimadick (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse comic strip categories

Hi Dimadick -- I'm curious about the edit you made on Mickey Mouse (comic strip), putting the "1930 comics debuts" and "1995 disestablishments in the United States" categories above "Disney comic strips" and "Mickey Mouse comics". I would think that "Disney comic strips" is a category that readers would browse through, therefore it's better to put that as the first category in the box. "1995 disestablishments" seems more like a maintenance category, not something that a reader would naturally be interested in. Can you tell me what your reasoning is? Thanks -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly work with categories of establishments and disestablishments, and these are the ones I check out first. They are not maintenance categories. Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but those categories aren't the ones that a reader would check out first. Would you agree that "Disney comic strips" is of more general interest than the disestablishments category? -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The year items provide articles from that point in time, while the other categories feature items from other periods. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 in comics

A tag has been placed on Category:2020 in comics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Comic strips ended in the 2020s

A tag has been placed on Category:Comic strips ended in the 2020s requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League

I also removed that template because it said "fan film" which is kind of a dumb name for a template that isn't a list of fan films. That said, there's already a Batman franchise template that has all those films listed. We don't need two of them, and I'm not sure how 2 exist in the first place because there are largely redundant to each other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discernment

If you properly look at my edit, I did not remove the information from the article but put it in the Family section where it belongs. In the lead it is indeed redundant and trivial, refer to the article on his successor. Parabellus (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual reason for why it should be in the lead or are you just in the habit of reverting changes without checking them or based on whether you like the edit summary? Parabellus (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See our main article on Henry VIII of England which does mention his father in the lede. Why can't Ptolemaic articles follow this example? Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead for Henry VIII is more informative yet only mentions that he was his father's successor. It does not not derail by describing his parents to the extent that the article on Ptolemy II does, especially given the length. Despite that your example is tenuous, if you think the article should conform to that standard then you would have to change every article on the Ptolemies or similar kings to be consistent. Parabellus (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying for some time. Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speculate as to why you haven't succeeded. Parabellus (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian Jews since you edited the page, this afd may be of interest to you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Egtved Girl does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Also, please try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article. The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. Eric ^talk 12:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s comics

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s comics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not undo

please dont edit first because im trying to make the plot better.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porter.384 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is a complete deletion "better"? Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Universities and colleges categories

Hi, I have been creating some new categories around universities and colleges and noticed that you added WikiProject Education to Category talk:Universities and colleges in London and WikiProject Biography to Category talk:Academics of Ravensbourne University London. Is it useful to add WP:BIOG to people categories? I can't see any category notifications on the project page, but I may have missed something. Similarly, is it useful to add WP:EDU to universities and colleges categories? WP:EDU seems like duplication as WikiProject Universities claims to cover universities and colleges. TSventon (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"noticed that you added WikiProject Education to Category talk:Universities and colleges in London" Actually, I added WikiProject Universities. WikiProject Education was instead added by User:Fayenatic london.

"Is it useful to add WP:BIOG to people categories?" Yes. It usually helps locate categories of people that should be added to specific taskforces. In this case, academics. Dimadick (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dimadick. I was interested to see whether I should add WP:BIOG and WP:EDU in future, rather than criticising anybody else. And apologies for confusing your edit with User:Fayenatic london's. They were helping me out by moving "Universities and colleges in London" to "Universities in London". TSventon (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1886 essays

A tag has been placed on Category:1886 essays requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:4th-century BC Armenian people

A tag has been placed on Category:4th-century BC Armenian people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suicides in Mauritius

A tag has been placed on Category:Suicides in Mauritius requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:4th century BC in Armenia

A tag has been placed on Category:4th century BC in Armenia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions?

I don't even disagree with this edit, since the change in wording was awkward, but could you explain the summary? How are these "unsourced additions"? john k (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of 1923-1924, the change says that Baldwin was head of government in 1924 only. Dimadick (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? Neither version says that he was head of government in 1924 only. The version you reverted is awkwardly worded, but not inaccurate. I suppose it doesn't matter. john k (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of CfD tags

Hi. Please do not remove CfD notices such as this until the discussion has ended. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion? The "notice" was a hidden message not evident to readers. Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King of Armenia?

Could you please stop adding categories which makes no sense in relation to the context of the article(s)? It's getting tiresome at this rate. All it takes is to read the first line of the articles to know that these figures weren't kings of Armenia. Please tell me where in the marzban article that the marzbans are stated to be actual kings? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is List of Armenian kings, which covers the various changes of the title over centuries. It does not make sense to change the category name with every minor political change. Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And who says that the List of Armenian kings is a proper article? It's a low quality article with a lot of inaccuracies. A Marzban is more or a less a governor, not a king. The same goes with a satrap. Neither marzban nor satrap are synonmous with king. None of these are "minor political changes", there is a big difference between being governor, prince and king - three completely different words with different meanings. Please read the articles before you edit them, thanks. EDIT: Stop your edit warring, this is far from constructive, take your concerns to the talk page (Read Marzban and Satrap while you're at it). --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the articles. Interchangable positions between vassasl kings, princes, governors, with Armenia attached to one empire or another. The categories are supposed to reflect a succession across centuries, not every minor change. The purpose of categories is to help locate articles, which the current format does not do. Dimadick (talk)

This is not a whole continuum of a kingship in Armenia though, these are quite different periods, which you are trying to incorrectly make homogeneous. Thus I honestly doubt you've read the articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I have read the articles over a period of months. I found it troublesome that the categories of successive rulers are not homogenous at all, despite a relative straight line from one Armenian state to the other. Trying to locate any single article is nearly impossible. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not homogenous because they're not supposed to be. They're not "successive rulers". A marzban/satrap is not a king, or else they would have been called king, it's quite simple. I'm sure there are other ways to do it. Take your concerns to the talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what we are doing here? What is the purprose of transfering the discussion to another talk page? Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for being a polite Wikipedian. I am glad we were able to settle the minor change cordially.Thematerialisticmaiden (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1st-century BC Armenian people

A tag has been placed on Category:1st-century BC Armenian people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2nd-century BC Armenian people

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd-century BC Armenian people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:3rd-century BC Armenian people

A tag has been placed on Category:3rd-century BC Armenian people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:6th-century kings of Armenia

A tag has been placed on Category:6th-century kings of Armenia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:7th-century kings of Armenia

A tag has been placed on Category:7th-century kings of Armenia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moloch has been nominated for discussion

Category:Moloch, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suicide in Mauritius

A tag has been placed on Category:Suicide in Mauritius requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:3rd century BC in Armenia

A tag has been placed on Category:3rd century BC in Armenia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2nd century BC in Armenia

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd century BC in Armenia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What do You think about my suggestion to add more flags and coat of arms on the Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 (I ask because of I noted on Your user page info that you are interested in many countries worldwide). Level 5 is welcome to new editors because of is lesser active than earlier, BTW We also have 99/100 articles on the level 2 with many new proposals and 997/1000 on the level 3 with many new proposals. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much for suggestion and fast reaction/reply.

I also forget to tell You about this discussion where is contigent to split Wikiproject "Core Biographies" with "Vital articles". We will see what will be later (if it would be split). IMO we have potentially two issues around biographies: 1.The list coistains very few women. Mathematically/proportionally the biggest missed area where there are no women are: religion and exploration. [5] - here was suggestion to add Amelia Erhart to explorers but according to this very reliabe source (pp 16) women are in 1% of cases pilots, so IMO adding women to exploration is quite unconsiderable and aspecific representation among 1000 articles but the religion very need a women as it is very broadly two-gendered activitiy 2. How to compare biographies with religional/mythical significance to others (Abraham and Moses are ahead of for example Maimonides but Krishna even is not on the same level what Adi Shankara, more about this you can find for example in this discussion or here and here (BTW Krishna is listed in category Category:Names of God in Hinduism and Category:People from Mathura?) 3. How to compare biographies who are vital in many field but nort speciffically in one; for example here is discussion about Disney (another very interesing thing is fact that w list Joan of Arc who is maily notable for being venerated, than for being military figure (see her describtion on wikidata, google results, ratings by wikiprojects and also dedicated describtions in rankings) but we do not list any woman religious figure on this level (earlier we had Hildegard of Bingen who also is more notable for being venerated than for being musician) 4. When article is "overlaped" and when is not, See here discussion about Amazon vs Amazon rainforest & Caligraphy vs literature but also my comment about Jesus vs Mary and for example Protestantism vs Reformation currently on the talk page. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dorrek VII1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dorrek VII1.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bébé's Kids

It appears you don't agree to a recent edit to Bébé's Kids. True, there's no source included. But shouldn't it be understandable that film is a box office bomb if it grossed less than its budget? 172.250.44.165 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our opinions on films' profits should not matter. We need sources making that point for us. Dimadick (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Irene of Athens has been nominated for discussion

Category:Children of Irene of Athens, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 18:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on article

I just started a new article. what do you think of this? I think this could be a helpful addition to Wikipedia. let me know. the article is 2010s political history. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References from items on page

Category:Children of Galba has been nominated for discussion

Category:Children of Galba, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 23:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1942 establishments in British India

A tag has been placed on Category:1942 establishments in British India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1945 disestablishments in British India

A tag has been placed on Category:1945 disestablishments in British India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galba has been nominated for discussion

Category:Galba, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Ruth

In my edit to the Book of Ruth Wikipedia article, I removed the stuff saying that exogamy being mentioned points to a late date for the composition, because it doesn't as Deuteronomy (written in the 15th century BC) chapter 7 shows, exogamy was controversial for all of Israel's ancient history. This edit was then reverted by you with no summary so I added it back. Then you revert it claiming that Deuteronomy was written in the post-exilic Persian period even though it wasn't. Primal Groudon (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Deuteronomy was not written in the 15th century BC. It is a late addition to the Bible. Read the main article:

":According to Rofe, since the idea was first put forward by W.M.L de Wette in 1805, most scholars have accepted that the core of Deuteronomy was composed in Jerusalem in the 7th century BC in the context of religious reforms advanced by King Josiah (reigned 641–609 BC).^[6] On this view, the history of Deuteronomy is seen in the following general terms:^[7]
In the late 8th century BC both Judah and Israel were vassals of Assyria. Israel rebelled and was destroyed c.722 BC. Refugees fleeing to Judah brought with them a number of new traditions (new to Judah, at least). One of these was that the god Yahweh, already known and worshiped in Judah, was not merely the most important of the gods, but the only god who should be served. This outlook influenced the Judahite landowning elite, who became extremely powerful in court circles after they placed the eight-year-old Josiah on the throne following the murder of his father, Amon of Judah.
By the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign, Assyrian power was in rapid decline, and a pro-independence movement gathered strength in the court. This movement expressed itself in a state theology of loyalty to Yahweh as the sole god of Israel. With Josiah's support, they launched a full-scale reform of worship based on an early form of Deuteronomy 5–26, which takes the form of a covenant (i.e., treaty) between Judah and Yahweh to replace that between Judah and Assyria. This covenant was formulated as an address by Moses to the Israelites (Deut.5:1).
The next stage took place during the Babylonian captivity. The destruction of the Kingdom of Judah by Babylon in 586 BC and the end of kingship was the occasion of much reflection and theological speculation among the Deuteronomistic elite, now in exile in the city of Babylon. They explained the disaster as Yahweh's punishment of their failure to follow the law and created a history of Israel (the books of Joshua through Kings) to illustrate this.
At the end of the Exile, when the Persians agreed that the Jews could return and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, chapters 1–4 and 29–30 were added and Deuteronomy was made the introductory book to this history, so that a story about a people about to enter the Promised Land became a story about a people about to return to the land. The legal sections of chapters 19–25 were expanded to meet new situations that had arisen, and chapters 31–34 were added as a new conclusion." Dimadick (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're using a Wikipedia article to justify an edit to a Wikipedia article. This is circular reasoning. Primal Groudon (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the sources. You should try it some time. Dimadick (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== Just copy the source code and paste it on the talk page of the user you wish to invite.

This user has been invited WikiProject Prussia please consider checking us out.

==

Kaiser Kitkat (talk)

thanks for help

thanks for all your help with articles like 2019 in United States politics and government, and other similar ones. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1942 establishments in British India

A tag has been placed on Category:1942 establishments in British India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1945 disestablishments in British India

A tag has been placed on Category:1945 disestablishments in British India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you so much for all the help with categories!

Brain Burke

A Premier of state government in western australia has 'never been known as premier of a regime !!!

happy christmas!!

JarrahTree 10:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category is for heads of government, and parented as such. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC) I can see your point and the list - no problem, but[reply]

governments in Australia have never been called regimes at any stage in their history. Have a safe christmans and new year JarrahTree 14:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuru Kenyatta

With this edit you added the category "Heads of regimes who were later imprisoned" to Uhuru Kenyatta. I read through the article and found nothing about this. Did I miss something? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. From the article: "On 15 December 2010, prior to him becoming president, Kenyatta was named as a suspect of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo, for planning and funding violence in Naivasha and Nakuru.^[8]" ... "On 8 March 2011, while serving as minister in Kibaki's government, he was indicted after being summoned to appear before the ICC pre-trial chamber. He was to appear at The Hague on 8 April 2011 alongside five other suspects.^[9]" Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say he was "imprisoned"? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was in trial until 2014, and is also covered as such in List of heads of government who were later imprisoned.Dimadick (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being "on trial", and being "imprisoned", are not the same. There is nothing in the article supporting the he is a head of government who was later imprisoned. How can he be "later imprisoned" when he's still the head of government? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was still on trial during his initial election. His charges were not dropped until 2015. Dimadick (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my question. I'm going to revert your edit. If you disagree please start a discussion on the article's talk page. I caution you in advance to please not edit war over this; the article simply does not support the category. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2000s disestablishments in Cook Islands

A tag has been placed on Category:2000s disestablishments in Cook Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year!!!!

Happy New Year Dimadick!

Happy New Year!

Hello Dimadick:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, thanks for all your great work here at Wikipedia, including categories, articles, etc!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Holocaust in the Sudetenland

This article is under GA review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) @Dimadick, fyi but although the Sudetenland was a "1938 establishment...in Germany", etc., the holocaust that took place within it was not. Cheers, —— SN 54129 15:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The establishments categories include multi-year events such as the Holocaust. Dimadick (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kerry William Bate. 1978. "The English Origins of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Errington Family." New England Historical and Genealogical Register 132(1978): 44-50
^ Kerry William Bate. 1978. "The English Origins of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Errington Family." New England Historical and Genealogical Register 132(1978): 44-50
^ http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/lincoln1572.htm
^ BBC (8 June 2019). "May bank holiday 2020 changed for VE day anniversary". Retrieved 9 June 2019.
^ Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (7 June 2019). "2020 May bank holiday will be moved to mark 75th anniversary of VE Day". Retrieved 9 June 2019. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ Rofé, pp.4–5
^ Rogerson 2003.
^ "The six men accused of inciting Kenya's post-election violence". The Christian Science Monitor. 15 December 2010.
^ Bernard Namunane (8 March 2011). "Ocampo Six ordered to appear at Hague". Daily Nation. Retrieved 10 May 2013.

Category:New Century Foundation has been nominated for discussion

Category:New Century Foundation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guy (help!) 00:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:History of Australia topical overviews

Category:History of Australia topical overviews has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

note re CFD

the editor who nominated the category above also wants to delete ALL such categories. please go there and comment. and please notify anyone else who might be positively inclined. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited El Chicano (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Los Angeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Impeachment trial of Donald Trump: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user is anonymous, so he/she has no talk page. Dimadick (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users have talk pages.– BrandonXLF (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dust Devil, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The release date of this film is not clear. Please do not add unsourced information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add new information. The year of release is mentioned below, with a British release date of December 1992. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it says it was intended for release in December of that year and then it was pulled. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 👋 I am completely open — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14E:2FF8:504B:E37C:B55F:BDDC (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games in Wales has been nominated for discussion

Category:Video games in Wales, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games in Scotland has been nominated for discussion

Category:Video games in Scotland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games in England has been nominated for discussion

Category:Video games in England, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:6th-century music genres

A tag has been placed on Category:6th-century music genres requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2nd-century music genres

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd-century music genres requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:4th-century music genres

A tag has been placed on Category:4th-century music genres requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:5th-century music genres

A tag has been placed on Category:5th-century music genres requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Without Honor (1932 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Works by Sri Lankan filmmmakers

A tag has been placed on Category:Works by Sri Lankan filmmmakers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9th-century French monarchs has been nominated for deletion

Category:9th-century French monarchs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century French monarchs has been nominated for renaming

Category:10th-century French monarchs, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fictional elements introduced in 1976

A tag has been placed on Category:Fictional elements introduced in 1976 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1970s Bangladeshi television programme debuts

A tag has been placed on Category:1970s Bangladeshi television programme debuts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction set in 932 has been nominated for merger to a parent category

Category:Fiction set in 932 and 4 other categories which you also created, has been nominated for merger to a parent category. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PatGallacher. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Alex Salmond, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! As he has not (yet) been imprisoned, only arrested for a short time, the category you added was inappropriate. PatGallacher (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century kings of Germany has been nominated for renaming

Category:10th-century kings of Germany, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century kings of Germany has been nominated for deletion

Category:19th-century kings of Germany, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Characters created by Win Mortimer

A tag has been placed on Category:Characters created by Win Mortimer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:8th-century deaths from tuberculosis

A tag has been placed on Category:8th-century deaths from tuberculosis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s disasters in the United Kingdom

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s disasters in the United Kingdom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s disasters by country

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s disasters by country requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

The Book of Daniel (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Scott

The Book of Esther (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Scott

The Wager (2007 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Scott

What If... (2010 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Scott

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ditko

That works for me. Of course, I wasn't the one who tagged it as citation needed. I feel like it is sufficiently explained and cited in the body of the article. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 19:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cemeteries in Kazakhstan

A tag has been placed on Category:Cemeteries in Kazakhstan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Nero has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Nero, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of

Could you explain the rationale for adding {{WikiProject Technology|class=|importance=}} to Talk:Murder of Pam Basu? What does a car-jacking have to do with technology? Surely you didn't add this just because the victim was a chemist?

Note also that another of your additions was removed in 2018 with edit summary:

remove {{WikiProject Chemistry|class=C |importance=Low}} - the murder itself is not related to WP chemistry

Nor does it look like the article fits within the projects for automobiles or transport. Or asian americans. I haven't checked the other categories.

What is going on here? This looks ill-judged at best. Shenme (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is from 2018. I no longer remember the rationale. Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Film series introduced in 1950

A tag has been placed on Category:Film series introduced in 1950 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films featuring hunters has been nominated for renaming

Category:Films featuring hunters, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a quick answer.

Give me a quick answer: Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan were British protectorates? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with screenplays by Dinesh D'Souza has been nominated for merging

Category:Films with screenplays by Dinesh D'Souza, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guy (help!) 14:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black women In comedy

Auntie Hammy made history in 2018 with the “Pew Pew Pew” song. She reached the comedy billboard. Will you be updating? NikkiHunter4416 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with Auntie Hammy. If you have a source, you can add her yourself. Dimadick (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pan 1953 reverted

Why have you reverted the my edit on Peter Pan (1953) page? There's nothing wrong with it!

So you are the one who deleted the entire plot section? Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything. I don't know what you're talking about.

The most recent revert I did on Peter Pan (1953 film) was reverting the deletion of the plot and information on the film's setting. Dimadick (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put informations that have been deleted previously about the origins of the stereotypes of the Indians, it's important, cannot be ignored. Why have been deleted after a few seconds I inserted them?

Those changes were deleted by User:Rodney Baggins, not me. See the article's history.Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Scooby-Doo! and the Spooky Scarecrow.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Scooby-Doo! and the Spooky Scarecrow.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Uther Pendragon has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Uther Pendragon has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Systems

As you may have already noticed through my pings in edit summaries, you added the project banner of WikiProject Systems to quite a few categories (not sure about other page types) very specifically related to mathematics. Could you please check your contributions to see where you could have made the same mistake other than on the pages I've already corrected? Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you have any comments? Please note that per Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, "[y]ou take full responsibility for any action you perform using AutoWikiBrowser". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have not responded for almost a year, I will now message WikiProject Systems. Thanks for your help. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Offspring of Diana (mythology)

A tag has been placed on Category:Offspring of Diana (mythology) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Invasions by the Republic of Ireland

A tag has been placed on Category:Invasions by the Republic of Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Scooby-Doo! and the Spooky Scarecrow.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Scooby-Doo! and the Spooky Scarecrow.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Can I change categories in the Amblin Entertainment and Spelling Television pages! The years they established are the real years "1970" and "1965", not "1981" and "1969" as we claimed! --172.127.114.25 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can source the dates, go ahead. I only changed the categories to match the current text. Dimadick (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already changed. --172.127.114.25 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1st century in music

A tag has been placed on Category:1st century in music requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 17:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2nd century in music

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd century in music requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:3rd century BC in music

A tag has been placed on Category:3rd century BC in music requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 18:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:4th century BC in music

A tag has been placed on Category:4th century BC in music requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 18:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the free...

( Moved from Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Humanities —— Shakescene (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

If you don't want those items discussed, how about you remove them from your question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the entire nation of North Korea is effectively a prison with a population of some 25 million. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effective prison systems are the best kind, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does the job for Kim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing a solid chunk are Kim, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Koreans are named Kim. It's like the Korean analogue to Smith or Jones. But there's only one guy named Kim who actually matters in NK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For more about the concept of freedom, see Liberty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you're mixing your metaphors. Police brutality, "excessive force", is often against the law, but it still happens. In contrast, the drinking age, along with whether to allow capital punishment, are chosen by the people of the individual states. If you don't like those things in your state, you are free to exercise your First Amendment rights and lobby for change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying is too expensive for the average "you", same with suing corporations. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It just matters how badly you want it. States with the death penalty are apparently OK with it. Likewise with the drinking age. But there's nothing stopping anyone from speaking out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hearing constituents complain. That's what legislators value over money. Good luck, folks! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your priorities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how dare someone say something about the US that isn't entirely positive eh? What is this? Fox News? Can we have some semblance of an adult discussion here? The OP asked an interesting, if somewhat naive question. The contradictions they mention are indeed odd to those outside the US, especially those used to a more liberal (in the American use of the word) society. Now, the question is probably not within the remit of the Refdesk, but there is no need to go off on nationalistic rants. And what does North Korea have to do with anything? Fgf10 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He said the US has the "largest prison population on Earth", which is a biased claim. The OP probably won't be back anyway, so this section will soon die. P.S. I hope you enjoy your national leader as much as we enjoy ours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of countries by incarceration rate, the US comes top on both "Prison Population" and "Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population" (by a substantial margin in both cases), so where is the "biased claim"? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bias is in those numbers. North Koreans can't leave their country. That's prison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about biased claims... --Lambiam 17:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more interesting that in the list of things OP chooses to point out as contrary to freedom, the first item is the drinking age, and at the head of a list including of mass incarceration, capital punishment, and police brutality. I am reminded of the second half of Gil Scott-Heron's "Comment No. 1" (on Small Talk at 125th and Lenox). A good listen for those ITT. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Does it mean that the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech for example?" They guarantee no such thing. See Freedom of speech in the United States:

"The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government."
"Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons, restrictions on the use of untruths to harm others (slander and libel), and communications while a person is in prison. When a speech restriction is challenged in court, it is presumed invalid and the government bears the burden of convincing the court that the restriction is constitutional." Dimadick (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Mental health of Jesus

The examples at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and MOS:QUOTEPOV show that it usually isn't necessary to give the full academic position of a person when quoting them. Or to take it out of context, assume you're quoting the opinion of well-respected A on subject B: is it really necessary to state that A is a "leading academic who holds X and Y prestigious positions at Z institution" when discussing a topic where the sole mention of A is for his opinion on the matter? Not really, and in any case that is out of the scope of the article. Similarly, WP:CITEBOMB suggests that we shouldn't have too many repetitive refs which state the same thing, and if we do, we should employ the most reliable one: in this case, the official site of Cambridge seems more appropriate than the subject's own self-published webpage. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:16th-century Byzantine people

A tag has been placed on Category:16th-century Byzantine people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

curious question?

we've never met but just curious question are you Australian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.91.52 (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm Greek. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so was just wondering have you ever been to Australia or since 2018 or 2019? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7406:8B00:3D:8607:8337:78AA (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. My knowledge of the country is limited to documentaries. Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1450s missing person cases

A tag has been placed on Category:1450s missing person cases requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 14:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seii has been nominated for renaming

Category:Seii has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell

Good day. For starters, let me say this is entirely personal and not related to Wikipedia business.

I noticed something in your userboxes. You said you've learned a lot about the government from George Orwell, but yet you support gun control, and Orwell was vehemently against gun control, as it undermined democracy. https://www.azquotes.com/author/11147-George_Orwell/tag/gun

To expand on that, Karl Marx was one of the forefathers of modern collectivist thought and opposed gun control for the same reasons that Orwell did.

Nothing Wikipedia-related, just wanted to expand your knowledge on the matter. Have a nice day. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe firearms have a detrimental effect on a state by helping the spread of crime and war. They do not make a society more democratic, as armed aggression is not democratic at all. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Pharaoh's daughter has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Pharaoh's daughter has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:5th-century Kings of the Romans has been nominated for merging

Category:5th-century Kings of the Romans has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Moses has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Moses has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Ancient Canaanite religions

Why did you revert my edit on 5th July? This article is plainly a BC article in which someone introduced another era marker. I harmonised this with the rest and stated this clearly in my edit summary. --82.27.217.102 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary seemed vague to me, and I noticed only a change in the era. You can restore your edit if the article otherwise uses "BC". Dimadick (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Servius Tullius has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Servius Tullius has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Noah has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Noah has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Whore of Babylon

A tag has been placed on Category:Whore of Babylon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism

Hi, I noticed your reversion at Pat Buchanan, and the other editor's undo of you. I've started an ANI thread about the other editor and mention you in it. DuncanHill (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Animated Universe

Hello, the Marvel Animated Universe page contains false information, it was confirmed by Cort Lane that all three seasons of Guardians of the Galaxy is set in the universe of Spider-Man 2017, this is also confirmed on the Marvel Appendix, which is edited by people who works at Marvel. I've tried to fix this error, and even added the source to Cort Lane's interview, but it keeps getting undone, can you please do something? That false information also keeps being put on the Ultimate Spider-Man, Avengers Assemble, Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H. and Guardians of the Galaxy pages. Aaa11769 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can add to that dispute, as I am unfamiliar with the sources. Try starting a discussion in the article's talk page. Dimadick (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I started a discussion on the article's talk page, but a new user by the name of JohnWalker97 removed it and said its "Unwanted." I put it back. Aaa11769 (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien - reception, themes, research, influences, ...

Hi, sorry to have to revert you, I thought I'd been clear in previous edit comment but maybe some explanation is required. The JRRT article is at the head of a large tree of articles, among them Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien which might be a home for what you want to say, Tolkien research, and Themes of The Lord of the Rings, to name just a few. I'd be appreciated if you'd add material down there (or further down, there are many more subtopics) than at the top level where all we need is a brief summary of these other articles. Hope that's ok wih you! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote at the same moment on my talk page:

The article on the Salon did not randomly equate the novel with writers connected to Romanticism. It explained in long paragraphs how the novel views the themes of Industrial Revolution and environmental degradation in a similar way. I tried to summarize that, in a similar way to how other paragraphs view the novel in terms of racism and classism.

Please do not outright revert the section to the stub quality left by the anonymous user. Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not doing that, and I'm not commenting on specific Salon articles but making a much larger point, which is that the discussion in the text in the top-level article should be a summary only; you are probably correct that the IP addition should be cut altogether, in fact I'll do that now. What we need up there is to give a 'big picture' of the subsidiary articles, most of which are now admirably clear; the Reception one is probably the weakest, so I will have a go at improving it now, and may replace the top-level summary when that's done. The last thing we need is to keep on building a WP:FORK of the Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien article in the JRR Tolkien article. I do hope this is clear and agreeable to all (and, honestly, the only logical approach, given the tree of articles). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Girls Forever

Excuese me sir, but someone spams Harvey Girls Forever! with adding the unconfirmed information about fifth season, which is unconfirmed - the user called HarveyTeenager. Could you do something like: tell him to stop do it, please? EddyBonez (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. I can not lock the article. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:People executed by Colorado by hanging

A tag has been placed on Category:People executed by Colorado by hanging requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 20:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Animated Universe

Can you revert the Marvel Animated Universe page back? because they confirmed it's official.

I will not engage in an edit war for you. Dimadick (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Acting Presidents of Germany

A tag has been placed on Category:Acting Presidents of Germany requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Medusa has been nominated for merging

Category:Children of Medusa has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why you reverted changes of protectorate page?

Do you have any valid source which can support your action? Corrector9990 (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the change included no sources. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of the Galaxy

Can you please change the protection level for the Guardians of the Galaxy (TV series) page? A user keeps removing information that is sourced. Aaa11769 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more control on protection levels than you have. Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in the Thurian Age has been nominated for deletion

Category:Films set in the Thurian Age has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in the Hyborian Age has been nominated for renaming

Category:Films set in the Hyborian Age has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Characters created by Javier Grillo-Marxuach

A tag has been placed on Category:Characters created by Javier Grillo-Marxuach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th Century Fox Television

A tag has been placed on Category:20th Century Fox Television requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BS11.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1520 in law

A tag has been placed on Category:1520 in law requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Wikilink Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions! Bekkadn (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction request in Israel–Lebanon relations

Hello.

Can you remove in the country comparison section in Israel–Lebanon relations, Arabic as an official language of Israel (it no longer is since in 2018, after Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People was passed) and French as an official language of Lebanon (Arabic is the sole official and national language according to the Constitution of Lebanon, French is not official)? As this article is protected, only administrators and extended users are allowed to edit it. Because I am neither type of these users, I cannot correct these mistakes.

Thank you, Karalainza (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the official languages section, which lacked sources. Other sections of the comparison are sourced. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1764 disestablishments in Russian Empire

A tag has been placed on Category:1764 disestablishments in Russian Empire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pagans of the Crusades has been nominated for renaming

Category:Pagans of the Crusades has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biblical criticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Maas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for neologisms categories

Some of the categories, which you have created or edited are proposed for renaming. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4 § Neologisms, words and phases introduced in time periods. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Religious organisations based in Andorra

A tag has been placed on Category:Religious organisations based in Andorra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1888 in basketball

A tag has been placed on Category:1888 in basketball requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Languages attested from the 1840s

A tag has been placed on Category:Languages attested from the 1840s requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1454 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:1454 BC deaths requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1950s slasher films

A tag has been placed on Category:1950s slasher films requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your helpful edits to Bloodlust Zombies! What do you think of the new article so far? Right cite (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced and surprisingly detailed for a low-budget film. Good job. However I should point out that audience ratings from Rotten Tomatoes are not considered reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series set in the 27th century has been nominated for merging

Category:Television series set in the 27th century has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1789 in Iran

A tag has been placed on Category:1789 in Iran requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, House of Hoshea

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, House of Hoshea. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Hoshea. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Hoshea. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Fram (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in bold in the speedy template: "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself". You oppose a redirect, but there is nothing in the article or the sources so far which indicates why we would need an article for Hoshea, and a separate one for the "House of Hoshea" when the house consists solely of Hoshea anyway. Fram (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have included texts that do not duplicate information on the Hoshea article. which mostly lacks inline citations. I have written articles on the previous 8 dynasties of Israel, and none duplicate information on the articles on the monarchs. You posted a deletion notice without even allowing me to expand the text. Dimadick (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...which doesn't address why you insist on having a separate article for this information. If you find new, better, additional... information on an existing subject, then you add that information to the article on that subject. Just imagine that I or anyone else would find yet more information on Hoshea / House of Hoshea, and create a new article "Dynasty of Hoshea". The next one to come around creates "King Hoshea", then "The ruling house of Hoshea", and so on. That's simply not how enwiki works. Unless you can convincingly show that Hoshea and House of Hoshea are two distinct subjects, two topics that are treated distinctly in the sources, there shouldn't be two articles either. Fram (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already the initial sources are used speak of the dynasty, and not the monarch. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dynasty, which consists of ... the single monarch. No sources have any information on the "dynasty" that doesn't belong in the article on the single king. Fram (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Montenegro

A tag has been placed on Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Montenegro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, House of Pekah

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, House of Pekah. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Pekah. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Pekah. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Fram (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Danny Aiello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lady Blue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much

Thanks so much for your helpful edits to new articles The Big Butt Book and Aroused (film)! Right cite (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winx club

Thank you for removing that edit I have tried multiple times and the person kept on reverting it and can tell it's fake cause who would put yes next to present on the edit source it was probably just a fan who wanted it to be on in the present day you removed that edit before I did it I thanked you

Helena (empress)

Could you please clarify your position at Talk:Helena (empress)#Requested move 25 October 2020? At first you opposed changing the current title but you then said there are other 7 or so 'empresses Helena'. Your oppose there is probably the only thing preventing the discussion from being closed. Thanks. Avis11 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are three support votes, versus my oppose vote. The discussion has not attracted much attention. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I was referring to your comment here, where you state that there are multiple 'empresses Helena'. Is this to be taken as a recanting of your earlier opposition to move the page away from 'Helena (empress)'?. Avis11 (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well... which is it? Do you still oppose the move or do you think '~~empress Helena~~ Helena (empress)' doesn't distinguish the subject properly? Avis11 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would "empress Helena" be different than the current title? Dimadick (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if you still oppose moving from Helena (empress) to Helena (mother of Constantine) because you yourself said Helena (empress) could apply to 7 people. Avis11 (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think she is the best known empress of that name. "Mother of Constantine" underplays her historical importance as a saint. Dimadick (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither title outlines her historical importance as a saint, and article titles are not just what is best known or what first comes to mind (WP:NWFCTM). The purpose of parenthetical disambiguation is just that: to eliminate ambiguity. There are many other empresses and saints Helena. So again, I don't see any advantage of empress over mother of Constantine as disambiguator. Avis11 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:6th-century French people

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 8#Category:6th century in France. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey

I'd like to congratulate you on your recent edit to the above page - it takes a certain amount of dedication to find a relevant category that just happens to add exactly 69(, dudes) characters to a Bill & Ted entry.Pastychomper (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Your user page is hilarious! But you're not biased at all. :) And you literally mention that Conservapedia is a joke. You're the typical hypocritical Wiki editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:FF09:0:109:51D9:8A36:517D (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century Romanian women singers

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century Romanian women singers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st-century Romanian women singers

A tag has been placed on Category:21st-century Romanian women singers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Bysshe Shelley: Mask of Anarchy/Masque of Anarchy

Hello Dimadick. Thank you for your edits to the Percy Bysshe Shelley page. I have changed the spelling of his poem "The Mask of Anarchy" back to Shelley's spelling. Please note that this is the spelling used in modern scholarly editions of the poem. Please see: Everest K, Matthews, G. et al (eds), The Poems of Shelley, 1804-1821, (volume 3), 2014 Longman; Percy Bysshe Shelley: The Major Works (Oxford World Classics) 2003; Donald H. Reiman (ed) Shelley's Poetry and Prose, Norton, New York, 1977; The Oxford Handbook of Percy Bysshe Shelley Edited by Michael O'Neill, Anthony Howe, Oxford 2013. Apparently when the poem was first published 10 years after Shelley's death, the publisher changed Shelley's spelling. I suggest that the title of the wikipedia article on the poem should be changed to the generally accepted spelling in both British and US English. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

این نشان برای شما!

	نشان ایده درخشان
	hello to u A.indicator (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castle of the Living Dead

Hi. Please don't add sources from source that don't go into more detail that Curti's book on the credits for that film. I've been researching and editing several film articles for Italian films for years and the credits for these films are often misleading if not flat out wrong. Unless new information is brought outside a database entry (which you have added), please stick to details an prose for these credits. It's clear from people on the set of the film that Reeves did not direct the film and your own edit of adding information that Reeves couldn't have written more than a draft. That's not screenwriting and it's not clear how little or how much more he may or may not have edited. I'd rather leave the infobox blank than add the information you have added.

Until then, please do not add that information again without talking about it on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources I have seen credit three co-directors for the film, with the official credit going to Luciano Ricci. Also Maslansky is co-credited for the story, but not for the script. Dimadick (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've addressed how these sources are incorrect in the article already though so they should not be included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category with only one article in it

Why do you think it is helpful to put an article in a category all on its own? It doesn't help anyone find articles on a related subject. The whole point of categories is to show the reader to similar articles. Richard75 (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The category functions as a subcategory of Category:1948 introductions and helps locate items of that year. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no other items of that year, only items of that decade. Richard75 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categorization: "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. " Dimadick (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic it belongs in "Fictional elements introduced in March 1948". Richard75 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the existing category tree categorizes by year. Reductio ad absurdum is not a convincing argument. Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually never mind, I think I was interpreting "element" in the wrong (and narrower) context. Richard75 (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly missing people found dead

Hi I see that formerly missing people found dead category was deleted, what a shame. I see that you were the only who wanted it kept and I agree that it should have been kept as well. This just goes to show that just because most people think something is true does NOT always make it so! Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I often find that useful categories get deleted, in "discussions" where only a few people actually participate. Most editors do not frequent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of deletions discussions please check this out this article Arthur Harvey as you might have not known that it is up for deletion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more articles that are up for deletion as well Benjamin Gordon (businessman) and EyeMan. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Earldormen of Mercia

A tag has been placed on Category:Earldormen of Mercia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arthur Harvey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 9th Infantry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Harlequin

added a link pointing to Inferno

Peramuridae

added a link pointing to Theri

Philippe Charles, Duke of Anjou

added a link pointing to Chest infection

Tom and Jerry's Giant Adventure

added a link pointing to Simple Simon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nome Kingdom

The article Nome Kingdom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Element does not have significant coverage in reliable third party sources as mandated by the WP:GNG. A search shows primary sources and passing mentions, nothing to establish WP:Notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jontesta (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shrunken Heads (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voodoo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Film series introduced in 1928

A tag has been placed on Category:Film series introduced in 1928 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chiniquodontoidea

A tag has been placed on Category:Chiniquodontoidea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Iranian Azerbaijani male writers

A tag has been placed on Category:Iranian Azerbaijani male writers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming !Vote in CFD

Thank you for participating in these categories for discussion proposals to delete Category:Female suicides and Category:Male suicides. You added the explanation that "The gender of these people is a trivial detail" but !voted to keep the categories which didn't seem to match.

Not trying to persuade your opinion but I just wanted to make sure that wasn't a typo. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I forgot to add "not" to the sentence. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Phooey Duck1.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Phooey Duck1.gif. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ancient Roman writers who committed suicide

A tag has been placed on Category:Ancient Roman writers who committed suicide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Iranian Azerbaijani writers who committed suicide

A tag has been placed on Category:Iranian Azerbaijani writers who committed suicide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jordanian writers who committed suicide

A tag has been placed on Category:Jordanian writers who committed suicide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1940s mockumentary films

A tag has been placed on Category:1940s mockumentary films requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Ghost Talks (1949 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Death's head.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Education in Christmas Island

A tag has been placed on Category:Education in Christmas Island requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Christmas Island society

A tag has been placed on Category:Christmas Island society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kuehneotheria

A tag has been placed on Category:Kuehneotheria requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dreampunk" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dreampunk. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Dreampunk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current AFDs

Hi, theses articles The Badger (film) and Metallica: This Monster Lives are up for deletion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here are three more articles Larry Harris (U.S. Marine), Bruno Wu, and Angel Mendez that are up for deletion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Apologies, I've just realised that I reverted your (correct) edit, while rejecting pending edits on May 9. My bad! :( --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:101 BC births

A tag has been placed on Category:101 BC births requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:11th-century BC women rulers

A tag has been placed on Category:11th-century BC women rulers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kidnapped Roman children has been nominated for discussion

Category:Kidnapped Roman children has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:26th-century BC monarchs has been nominated for merging

Category:26th-century BC monarchs has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Military history of British Overseas Territories

A tag has been placed on Category:Military history of British Overseas Territories requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Catherine of Aragon has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Catherine of Aragon has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1980s lost films

A tag has been placed on Category:1980s lost films requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why POV edit?

Why have you leaved out the {{Notability}} tag, stating it was a "POV edit" in Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma? --Meridiana solare (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is seems based on your dislike of the topic of modern nobility, rather than a lack of sources. Lack of notability in Wikipedia typically means that there are insufficient sources covering the topic. Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm asking about why this topic is notability. Is he notability just because it exist?

And House of Bourbon-Parma, it seems like you have missunderstood the "reason" stated in the tag: it's clearly written the the issue is the "duke" noble title, not the succession of people in the family. The Duchy ended by merging into Kinkdom of Italy in XIX century. (Even every school book states this, in Italy) --Meridiana solare (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources about him, so he is clearly notable. The Duchy may have ended, but the relevant title or the Dukal family never did. 10:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:July 1993 events in Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:July 1993 events in Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine

A tag has been placed on Category:Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Therioherpetidae

A tag has been placed on Category:Therioherpetidae requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agustín de Spínola Basadone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7th-century Gallo-Roman people has been nominated for merging

Category:7th-century Gallo-Roman people has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and Trademark Infringement Lawsuit section

The Talk Discussion is now opened to all Editors to comment on the Copyright and Trademark Infringement Lawsuit section for the article. Please visit the talk page for InvestigativeNews located at User talk:InvestigativeNews

InvestigativeNews (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Morgan le Fay has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Morgan le Fay has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of George VI has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of George VI has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Louis XIII of France has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Louis XIII of France has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Thutmose II has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Thutmose II has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghost & Molly McGee

Hey, so I was just wondering whether you knew what the deal was with the release date (or rough release date) for The Ghost & Molly McGee? Cause I've noticed the date at the top of the page has been mixed up and changed quite a bit in the last couple of days, and since the last person to edit was you, I wondered if you knew. It'd been switched to March to April/May to just Early 2021. I was wondering if you knew which one was correct.--Loosymistlb (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps changing, without new sources being added. Which means it is OR. Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films featuring Daisy Duck has been nominated for deletion

Category:Films featuring Daisy Duck has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films featuring Huey, Dewey, and Louie has been nominated for deletion

Category:Films featuring Huey, Dewey, and Louie has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films featuring Disney's Big Bad Wolf has been nominated for deletion

Category:Films featuring Disney's Big Bad Wolf has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rebus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abydos.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legendary Christian saints has been nominated for deletion

Category:Legendary Christian saints has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Novellasyes (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians who died in office has been nominated for renaming

Category:Politicians who died in office has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BD2412 T 04:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1719 disestablishments in England

A tag has been placed on Category:1719 disestablishments in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD opened for Arab-Iranian conflict

I think you can give a message on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab–Iranian conflict (2nd nomination), because you are one of the editors of Arab-Iranian conflict -- Wendylove (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1398 establishments in India

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:1398 establishments in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:5th-century Roman governors of Egypt

A tag has been placed on Category:5th-century Roman governors of Egypt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:7th-century Roman governors of Egypt

A tag has been placed on Category:7th-century Roman governors of Egypt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1390s establishments in India

A tag has been placed on Category:1390s establishments in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1398 in India

A tag has been placed on Category:1398 in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Procopii

A tag has been placed on Category:Procopii requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jessie Penn-Lewis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really need help with editing

Hi, do you think that you could help me add some entries to missing person's lists? I have my hands completely full with editing and could really use some help, and would be very thankful to get any help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are we missing in these lists? Dimadick (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP who is reverting rapidly

Hello, I happened to notice that 107.77.230.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is rapidly reverting your edits, what's exactly their problem? --Ashley yoursmile! 17:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is:

inserting the unsourced title "Osiris-Orion son of Ra" in the article Osorkon II
inserting the unsourced title "Osiris-Orion son of Ra" in the article Ramesses IX
inserting the offensive title "Christ the Logos" in the article Ramesses XI.
inserting a claim that the Hittite language was Armenian in the article Aryan.

Several of these vandalisms are ongoing for days. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick, I've requested semi-protection on these pages, let's see if that helps. Ashley yoursmile! 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

names in info boxes

The real names don’t belong up top. They’re already under alter ego.100.40.11.12 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they disambiguate the articles from other articles concerning characters who used the same codename. Marvel has more than 3 Spider-Women. Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC) They already have their name under alter ego.100.40.11.12 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1390s in India

A tag has been placed on Category:1390s in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Years of the 14th century in India

A tag has been placed on Category:Years of the 14th century in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People from Caesarea

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 25#Category:Caesarea (Israel). – Fayenatic London 22:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abu Mansur al-Azhari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grammarian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kipling, Saskatchewan

If you're going to add a Wikiproject, it would be great if you could also take a moment to fill it out. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Works about Sumer

A tag has been placed on Category:Works about Sumer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021

		Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021
		On behalf of WP:WPWW, with appreciation for the women writer categories you created during first quarter 2021. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Palaces in Israel

A tag has been placed on Category:Palaces in Israel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current AFD

This article here Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland is up for deletion. Also happy Easter weekend! Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:15th-century BC women rulers

A tag has been placed on Category:15th-century BC women rulers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Plato characters

A tag has been placed on Category:Plato characters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

I thought that I would let you know about this article Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan is up for deletion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tetrarchy has been nominated for deletion

Category:Tetrarchy has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in Afghanistan

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in Afghanistan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in Austria

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in Austria requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in Iran

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in Iran requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in Israel

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in Israel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in Italy

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in Italy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in New Zealand

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in New Zealand requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in Poland

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in Poland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in Romania

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in Romania requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in Serbia

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in Serbia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Child abduction in the State of Palestine

A tag has been placed on Category:Child abduction in the State of Palestine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buddhists of Lord Edward's crusade has been nominated for merging

Category:Buddhists of Lord Edward's crusade has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD about missing person

This article here Disappearance of Maya Millete is up for deletion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Husbands of Servilia (mother of Brutus) has been nominated for deletion

Category:Husbands of Servilia (mother of Brutus) has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kidnapping in Poland

A tag has been placed on Category:Kidnapping in Poland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Dominican Republic people murdered abroad

A tag has been placed on Category:Dominican Republic people murdered abroad indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1610s fantasy novels

A tag has been placed on Category:1610s fantasy novels indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your tagging with WikiProject Sanitation

Hi, I see you are adding many WikiProject tags to article talk pages. Like here. I feel that you are tagging articles with WikiProject Sanitation too freely. The scope of that WikiProject might be a bit narrower than you might think. For example, I am not sure if Climate change and ecosystems should be tagged. What is your reasoning for those tags? Would you say "the more the merrier"? I am unsure but usually use that tag in a more restrictive manner, based on the objectives of that WikiProject. Would be interested to have a little discussion about this. EMsmile (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I copy whatever WikiProjects are listed in Talk:Climate change, as the ones most relevant to the topic. Dimadick (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I am not sure if that's an ideal approach. Are you saying any Wikipedia article that has "climate change" in its title should automatically be tagged with WikiProject Sanitation because the overarching climate change article is tagged with that project? I wouldn't see it that way. I feel it's preferable to keep it focused, e.g. when looking at all the articles tagged with that WikiProject here. EMsmile (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I see WikiProject Sanitation as a mostly failed and inactive WikiProject. Less than 1000 articles in an Project with a supposedly global scope? 14:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Well that depends if the success of a WikiProject is measured by the number of articles that are tagged with that project? I don't think it's a sign of quality to do that. Or are there any Wikipedia policies where this is stipulated? I am one of the founders of that WikiProject and I don't thinks it's failed and inactive. It was never my intention to have thousands of articles tagged with it, even though it would be easy to do so, like any product to do with cleaning or hygiene, any pumping station, any sewer projects, anything to do with odour and so forth. But what would be the benefit? Whether it's active or not can best be seen on its talk page. It's true that it's not as big and active as others, but I think it's done high quality work, and is continuing to do so. Something like this is very useful. Blindly tagging more articles with it is not going to make the WikiProject more successful in my opinion. - Which WikiProject do you regard as successful? Personally, I am most impressed and interested in WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Climate Change. EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Film are great examples of active Projects with wide scopes.

WikiProject Medicine has a stricter policy on sources than anything else in WikiPedia, which often leads to the better quality in the articles.
WikiProject Climate Change is quite ambitious, but it still lacks coverage in many regions of the world. Dimadick (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those hints. Would you say that a WikiProject automatically "looks better" if it has more articles tagged? If that's the case perhaps I should reconsider my previous stance. I felt it was better to have it small and well defined. But maybe it's better to loosen the boundaries a bit. Hmmmm. WikiProject's Medicine stance on WP:MEDRS is indeed amazing and I think it's worked out very well. What do you mean by "WikiProject Climate Change is quite ambitious, but it still lacks coverage in many regions of the world"? EMsmile (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago, I was creating redirects for article sections which cover the climate or climate change in Asian countries. We still lack dedicated articles on over 50% of Asian countries. Europe and Africa have similar omissions. Australia and New Zealand get the lion's share of Oceania's coverage. I still have not checked whether we have new articles for countries in the Americas. Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you mean the CCC articles (climate change in country X). That's just a small (but exciting) aspect of the WikiProject climate change. I recently worked on 50 of them to give them a standard structure. Recently, some people translated some of them into Spanish and also created a few new ones for Latin America (which can be translated into English next). See here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encuentros/Editat%C3%B3n_en_l%C3%ADnea_por_la_semana_de_la_Tierra All the existing English ones can be found here. They are very suitable for student assignments and quite a few of them were actually created through students assignments. EMsmile (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to the original question: I think you have convinced me to take a more relaxed approach to the tagging question. The more tagged articles for the WikiProject Sanitation the better, even if the connection is indirect, like it would be for climate change and ecosystems. EMsmile (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Buddhists of the Crusades

A tag has been placed on Category:Buddhists of the Crusades indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Education in the State of Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Esuvii has been nominated for deletion

Category:Esuvii has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1413 disestablishments in England

A tag has been placed on Category:1413 disestablishments in England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please restore the Flemish writers to the subcategories which you have emptied. Rathfelder (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? You emptied long-standing categories about a real ethnicity (Flemish) to create categories about ephemeral entities (Burgundian Netherlands, Habsburg Netherlands, and Spanish Netherlands) which are not reflected in the sources we use. Stop with the POV edits. Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slaves of Babylon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1413 disestablishments by country

A tag has been placed on Category:1413 disestablishments by country indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1413 disestablishments in Europe

A tag has been placed on Category:1413 disestablishments in Europe indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Charles, Prince of Wales has been nominated for deletion

Category:Children of Charles, Prince of Wales has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Romani people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trader.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Honey Bunny for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Honey Bunny 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/AfD discussion title until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ruling class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stratification.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:16th-century Flemish people

A tag has been placed on Category:16th-century Flemish people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in Hindu mythology has been nominated for merging

Category:Women in Hindu mythology has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:21 BC deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 15:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:10th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:11th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:12th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:13th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:14th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:15th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:15th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion

Category:16th-century rulers of Austria has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

link

hi, your link got removed in the middle od as series of pending edits, on your request and investigation I have replave it for you, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Citations to Kshatriya Article

Hello! Could you please take a look at this edit request of mine to the Kshatriya article? I've just added a few citations to statements that needed them.

Thanks! Aathish S | talk | contribs 07:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael A. Martin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael A. Martin, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Martin (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Wikipedia

Suzu2309 is writing something that is not written on the Japanese Wikipedia Jun Matsumoto page. Please delete Jun matsumoto Music career. Japanese Wikipedia has not Music career.

2001:4430:C006:F7A3:28B9:51E5:21E1:584 04:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9th-century German poets has been nominated for merging

Category:9th-century German poets has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of western Roman empire

I can't send you a thank you for every edit you made so consider this a thank you times 50! :-) One minor problem - the last edit on the 'battle of A' created a punctuation error. No biggie, but some of the other prose changes created some similar problems. It would be good to go back and check through all of those. And here's a thank you up front! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies, I apparently sent this to the wrong editor. My bad! Please ignore! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CfR (Female → Women composers, musicians, etc.)

Hi! You were helpful in supporting a recent CfR for changing categories like "American female classical composers" to "American women classical composers". Because I'd already had another related CfR approved, I thought double-precedent would be enough to switch to "speedy" for my next batch; unfortunately that doesn't seem to have as many eyes on it. Would you mind looking over the current CfR (below the collapsed yellow bar on that page) and, if it still seems reasonable to you, supporting it? Thanks so much! // Knifegames (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Apologies if this isn't how (speedy) CfRs work, by the way; I'm new to these! // Knifegames (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects

Hello Dimadick,

This is a wider issue than any one article, so figured I'd bring it to your talk page. I saw that you added a bunch of Wikiprojects to the Talk:May 24, 1993 PKK attack page, I removed 'em, you added them back. I really don't agree with such a wide addition of vaguely related topics. Wikiprojects are more useful if they have a catalog of exactly the items of interest to them, not every vaguely related article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology#Scope for example: Wikiproject Sociology should be about sociology topics specifically, not individual incidents of anything affected by sociology. Which would be, let's face it, everything... I'm not sure where to draw the line here if you're including a single attack that has nothing in particular to do with sociology. Should every single battle / ambush / etc. in project MILHIST be added to Wikiproject Sociology?! Surely not IMO, and the project is more useful if it covers exactly what's directly relevant: articles like, say, Military sociology. In the same way, Wikipedia:WikiProject Death should be about things like graveyards and mourning, and explicitly lists MILHIST topics like battles as outside scope, which this was.

Like I said, this is a broader topic than any one article. Is what I write above convincing about being a bit more sparing with adding only directly relevant Wikiprojects? Or is this worth bringing up in a wider forum somewhere? SnowFire (talk)

"Is what I write above convincing" Not really. I realized long ago that many articles on Wikipedia were either never tagged for a WikiProject, or were tagged with an inactive one. I habitually add as many WikiProjects have scopes overlapping with an article topic, because this is the only way in which I can bring more attention to overlooked articles. I habitually search for articles which can be added to WikiProjects. Dimadick (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding missing relevant Wikiprojects is fine and good work. I'm claiming that you're adding irrelevant WikiProjects that are not in scope and too loosely related. That is not helpful; it is minorly harmful, because it blurs the project's focus. A clearly defined scope is a good thing: people who want to participate on that topic can find exactly the relevant articles and monitor progress on them. As an extreme example, if every article was added to every Wikiproject, it wouldn't increase the total amount of editor attention at all - it'd just make the listings of articles within each WikiProject useless. If you want to "bring more attention to overlooked articles" and add a related WikiProject, great, maybe you'll find someone interested in the topic. If you add an unrelated Wikiproject, you won't. Really, is there an affirmative case to be made that sociology-minded editors would know more about an ambush in the Kurds - Turkish government conflict? Or that law & law enforcement is anything more than tangentially related to what was clearly a case of rebels / freedom fighters / terrorists / etc., not common criminals? SnowFire (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to overlooking that criminology is already covered as of High-importance to sociology, and that massacre is covered as well (though not with the importance I would like). And you are making a distinction between crime and terrorism that the WikiProject Crime does not make. Multiple terrorist incidents have already been covered, without my particular involvement.

"maybe you'll find someone interested in the topic." I am not searching for people to work on the articles. I regularly copyedit them, and on occasion try to add additional sources to them. I just want people to rate them. Dimadick (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criminology is an intersection of sociology and crime, yes. That's not controversial. That does not mean that every single crime ever is also part of Wikiproject Sociology. To copy & paste the previous link, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology#Scope:

Overview of scope

We cannot include all articles related to social activity: that would be millions of articles (all social facts...). Hence, we focus on those elements that are highly related to and mostly exclusive to sociology.

This article is not highly related nor exclusive to sociology, nor are 99% of massacres that don't fall into the "sources exist covering it from the sociological perspective" case. And for "a distinction between crime and terrorism that the WikiProject Crime does not make", actually, yes, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Hierarchy definition doesn't say anything about terrorism articles being in scope. It's about things like crime families and common criminals, not about guerilla warfare or terrorism. Both the Kurds and the Turks would be offended by a claim that this kind of incident was a matter of crime - because it was about justified resistance to the PKK, and because it was about terrorism to the Turkish government. If all terrorism was crime, then there'd be just a single "Wikiproject Terrorism and Crime", but there isn't.

More productively, is there any way to convince you to be more sparing in your Wikiproject additions at articles in general? Or would a discussion on the individual Wikiprojects be valuable to show that I'm not just making this up? I really don't see what there is to debate considering the scope described in the documentation, but if you want, I'd be happy to raise the issue on the talk pages. This is only worthwhile if you'll believe the maintainers of the Wikiprojects as to their own scope, though, and respect their wishes to only add in-scope articles. SnowFire (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"and respect their wishes to only add in-scope articles" I am the same person who debated one of the few active editors of WikiProject Sanitation, and convinced him that he had interpreted the scope too restrictively. Which was why the project seemed to have had no additional articles for months. Believe it or not, I read every scope before making additions.

By the way, is WikiProject Crime actually covering crime families? Because they are also the main focus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime. Dimadick (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, but I do know that based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized crime/Archive 1#Defining "organised crime", Part II: Terrorism (which I raised), there wasn't any consensus to include terrorism in that Wikiproject. I agree that it seems to me like Organized crime could really be more of a taskforce of WikiProject Crime, but as I'm not much of a participant in either project, I don't think I'd be the right one to raise that proposal.

I'm not familiar with the WikiProject Sanitation issue; like I said above, if you added relevant articles to the Sanitation Wikiproject, then good work! I really, really, really disagree if you're going around adding Death / Law / Law Enforcement / Sociology to every massacre (as your edit summary seemed to indicate was proper in your view), though, because the scope of those projects is quite clearly more narrow. Maybe if there was some rogue cell of police officers involved in a massacre then Law Enforcement might be relevant, and maybe if a massacre was the subject of major interest among Sociologists and used as a case study then it could apply, and if an article on a massacre also shows lots of interest in court case afterward then Law might apply, etc., but that standard needs to be met per-article. SnowFire (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"if there was some rogue cell of police officers involved in a massacre" Is this sarcasm? Category:Crimes committed by law enforcement is full of massacres committed by law enforcement. Massacres in multiple countries, some of them filmed. Dimadick (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused? No? I think there was a misunderstanding somewhere if you think this was sarcasm. Obviously massacres that are committed by Law enforcement should be included in WikiProject Law Enforcement. Massacres that are not (as the sample case) should not be included in WP Law Enforcement without some other link to the topic. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, so that it's not done by stealth, note that I went ahead and re-removed the added Wikiprojects. All I'm saying is that your edit summary worried me hence me coming to the page it sounds like you claim that all massacres should have all of these Wikiprojects. If that was an overstatement or my misinterpretation, then great, but the point is just that this particular incident, and many other massacres, had nothing in particular to do with the police at all, nor with sociology, nor with death-as-a-whole, etc. Something to keep in mind for future articles. SnowFire (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African Americans shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States

I've begun a new CfD discussion for Category:African Americans shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 18#Category:African Americans shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States. As you participated in the previous discussion earlier this month you may want to take a look. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category descriptions

It can be helpful to provide descriptions for categories to avoid confusion, but not every category needs one. Sometimes the title is self-explanatory. Giving "Category:Things" the description "Articles about things" doesn't add any useful information. If the link to the subject is important to avoid confusion, we can achieve that with a hatnote. MClay1 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes are practically useless, because they don't spell out a category's scope. If given a choice, I would delete them all. 12:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1870s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1870s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1880s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1880s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1890s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1890s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1900s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1900s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1910s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1910s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1920s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1920s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1930s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1930s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1940s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1940s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1950s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1950s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1960s videos

A tag has been placed on Category:1960s videos indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dimadick,

As far as I know, videotape technology didn't exist before the 1960s/1970s so I'm not sure what your thinking was behind creating these categories for videos that didn't exist 100+ years ago. I didn't empty the categories, I just tagged them as being empty but I was surprised to see them considering how recent the invention of videotape was. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine has been nominated for deletion

Category:Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Central European Highlands for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Central European Highlands 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/Central European Highlands until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meir Kahane

Hi Dimadick, could you please explain your thinking as to why Meir Kahane fits in Category:1990 murders in the United States when we already have Assassination of Meir Kahane, the article about the murder, under that category. Meir Kahane is not a murder. See this discussion before replying. While Meir Kahane is not a redirect, I believe the same principle applies. StonyBrook (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the entire category tree always includes the murder victims, not just events. No principle applies. Dimadick (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no murder article on the victim, I agree. But if I am only interested in murders, shouldn't I be privy to the murder article only, if one exists, and not the person article? The person is about a lot more than the murder. And if I want to know more about the person, they are just one click away in the murder article. What I don't understand is why you think both are needed in the murder category when only one is a murder. To me it looks like clutter. StonyBrook (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" The person is about a lot more than the murder." Nonsense. Removing murder victims from the murder category tree renders the article invisible. And the category is underpopulated. Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at Micah's Idol, may be confused with vandalism. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck are you suggesting that I changed numbers and dates by adding a category? Dimadick (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Book of Tobit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:8th-century BC kings of Rome has been nominated for merging

Category:8th-century BC kings of Rome has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Avilich (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles question

Out of curiosity, is there anything that could change your view on the demotion of some of the writers on our level 3 of the Vital articles project to level 4? Particularly Austen and Kafka? Obviously Kafka and Austen are important authors, but we do have a level 4 list where authors of their level would fit much better. Zelkia1101 (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see Level 3 as pointless if it contains no information on literature or any other of the arts. Dimadick (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it’s not like Level 3 will be left without writers or literary representatives once Kafka or Austen or Twain are removed. There will still be ten more writers on the level 3 list that are far more important. Zelkia1101 (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:Indian princesses of the Americas

The article Indian princess documents a racist stereotype and misconception about Native American people. You, or someone, was putting actual Native American women into this category, furthering the racist stereotype. It is one thing to have an article that documents the term and use/abuse of it. It is quite another to perpetuate it by adding people's relatives and ancestors to it, because they have been slandered with the slur and misconception. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to acknowledge that the writeup you did for it, and most of the categories you put it in, show you had good intentions with this. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bera (king)

added a link pointing to Canaanite

Shuah

added a link pointing to Canaanite

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories about Murders in the United Kingdom

I notice you recently edited various talk pages of Categories about Murders in the United Kingdom, like Category talk:19th-century murders in the United Kingdom. In the course of those edits, I noticed that you replaced the banners for WikiProject Crime with banners for WikiProject British crime and wonder why you did so. The effect is to remove these categories from the Crime-related assessment table, as shown in the quality log. There is no equivalent table for British crime and no log is produced, even though a page for it exists. In any case, these murder categories still fall within the scope of WikiProject Crime, so I do not understand why the banners were removed. Can you please explain your thinking? Or was this an accidental oversight? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not accidental. I had previously seen articles I edited having been removed from WikiProject Crime and placed in WikiProject British Crime, so I assumed the British articles were excluded. Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century Roman consuls has been nominated for deletion

Category:10th-century Roman consuls has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Avilich (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:15th-century rulers of Württemberg has been nominated for renaming

Category:15th-century rulers of Württemberg has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1778 in Mexico

A tag has been placed on Category:1778 in Mexico indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Household deity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Francis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wives of Tiberius has been nominated for merging

Category:Wives of Tiberius has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so much for your work on Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal. The system won't let me thank you as many times as you deserve, so I am giving you one big thank you here. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was recently working on the Diocletianic Persecution, and I searched for related articles. Dimadick (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you found this one. You improved it. Hope to see around again sometime! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More thank yous!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject article class function

Hey, do you have any idea what's going on with the Military History WikiProject template on Talk:Genghis Khan - it appears to say "class=B" on the back end, like all the other projects, but continues to reflect "C" on the front end. Do you know what might be causing this (out of curiosity/interest in a fix)? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not know what is the problem with this rating. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: The issue is that the template has |b1=no - see the documentation at Template:WikiProject Military history for more details. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:590s BC births

A tag has been placed on Category:590s BC births indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Book of Judith

added a link pointing to Assyrian

Pool of Siloam

added a link pointing to Purification

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Award for you!

	Fabulous Neon Barnstar
	For your massive contributions in the Musicians section in the 1980s article. Edit on! Pink Saffron (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:5th-century BC kings of Armenia

Category:5th-century BC kings of Armenia and Category:6th-century BC kings of Armenia have been tagged for deletion as empty.– Fayenatic London 15:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:41 BC births

A tag has been placed on Category:41 BC births indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Byzantine people has been nominated for deletion

Category:16th-century Byzantine people has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 15:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have

A safe christmas and new year. JarrahTree 00:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are safe as well. Dimadick (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1398 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:1398 BC deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 15:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1366 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:1366 BC deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 15:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1466 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:1466 BC deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 15:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1435 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:1435 BC deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 15:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1414 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:1414 BC deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 15:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1529 BC deaths

A tag has been placed on Category:1529 BC deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 15:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday greetings (2021)

Dimadick,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Hello Dimadick: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:15th-century BC High Priests of Israel has been nominated for merging

Category:15th-century BC High Priests of Israel has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1st-century BC Roman emperors has been nominated for merging

Category:1st-century BC Roman emperors has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Avilich (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Films directed bv Aubrey Wisberg

A tag has been placed on Category:Films directed bv Aubrey Wisberg indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 20:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ahab has been nominated for deletion

Category:Ahab has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bathsheba has been nominated for deletion

Category:Bathsheba has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2350 BC Middle East Anomaly

I see you have requested an image for this article, so you may not be aware that it has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2350 BC Middle East Anomaly. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Christianity in Christmas Island

A tag has been placed on Category:Christianity in Christmas Island indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 18:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too many irrelevant Wikiprojects, again

Hello Dimadick,

Re edits like this and this...

Per our earlier discussion, I know we have differing views on the threshold of relevance for when a Wikiproject should be attached to an article. IMO, Wikiprojects only go on closely attached subjects, not everything peripheral, because if any relation was sufficient, we'd have every article in every project, which isn't helpful. Articles should be in relevant projects. But let's put that aside for a moment: looking at some of your recent contributions, I don't think some of these relations are even close to qualifying. Jewish High Priests should not be part of WikiProject Christianity, unless you want to start a major flamewar and claim that all of Judaism falls under Christianity's purview. Obviously Christians are interested in various parts of Jewish history and some topics will correctly be dual-added, but things like Jewish High Priests are absolutely not one of them, aside from maybe Caiaphas. In the same way, the Wikiproject on the modern state of Israel does not automatically get to be attached to every bit of ancient history in the region, just as Wikiproject Iraq isn't on Neo-Babylonian Empire or the like. Finally, for "Ancient Near East", this one is a bit more arguable, but the scope of that project is rather clearly pre-Hellenistic era topics currently. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ancient_Near_East#Categories : it's for stuff like the Hittites and the Ancient Egyptians and Elam and so on. You're adding it to a bunch of topics post-Alexander the Great, which is the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and whatever is used for post-Alexander Persia (although, judging by Talk:Sasanian Empire, I'm not sure if such a project exists - WikiProject Iran, I guess). If you think that the Ancient Near East project should expand and cover this stuff too, you should get consensus for that, because the project does not cover it currently.

Please revert your additions. I'd do it myself but don't want to start an edit war after seeing the various changes, so figured I'd bring it up here to discuss first. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" we'd have every article in every project, which isn't helpful." While leaving articles that have not been rated in over a decade is helpful?

"Jewish High Priests should not be part of WikiProject Christianity" Most of them are covered in the Old Testament, the Deuterocanonical books, and the New Testament.

"the Wikiproject on the modern state of Israel does not automatically get to be attached to every bit of ancient history in the region" As I already noted in my reversion text, I didn't add WikiProject Israel in the first place. The Project had already added the article and rated it. Your reversion on Alcimus didn't even remove it.

"but the scope of that project is rather clearly pre-Hellenistic era topics currently." It covers the Hellenistic period and a lot of Roman topics. The Ancient Egyptians are out of scope.

"which is the purview of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome" That project barely touches on topics of the Hellenistic era. Most of the Seleucid rulers have not even been rated. Dimadick (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about with "leaving articles that have not been rated". Whatever you meant, it's not relevant for my point. If an article is not within the scope of a Wikiproject - don't put it in! It's that simple.
Your analogy to the Old Testament - um, no. Obviously the books of the Old Testament are cases that are justly classed in both projects, and so characters like David are obviously in multiple Wikiprojects, but that's not what we're talking about, right? We're talking about Jewish High Priests long after scripture shared between Jews & Christians had ended, like Phannias ben Samuel. I know that you are probably not actually intending this, but this kind of categorization is moving in the direction of depicting all Jewish High Priests pre-Jesus as really Christians, which is deeply offensive even if that was not the intent. I suggest you read Supersessionism. If that's not your argument, what is? Because Christian theology really does not care about the line of Jewish High Priests. This is my biggest bone of disagreement - this kind of thing is asking for trouble. Do not do it.
On WP Israel: Yeah, I typed up the above message too quickly. I do actually disagree with Israel being there, but I don't care enough to remove it since it was added by someone before.
I really do not understand your point about ratings, again. This is a matter of scope: if an article is in scope, it should have the Wikiproject (even if its rating is 10 years out of date), if it is not in scope, it should not be in the Wikiproject (even if its rating was updated daily). So let me reframe the question again: what is the scope of WikiProject Near East? Ignore ratings for a moment. I've already linked you my evidence, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ancient_Near_East#Categories. That makes it very clear that the Hellenistic era stuff does not belong to me. If this is in error, then the WikiProject page should be updated first to say so. The fact that some articles are misclassified as in the project just means they should be removed from the project, not that others should be added in. If you really insist, we can start a talk page discussion there, but my hopes aren't high because that Wikiproject seems largely inactive. SnowFire (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You seem to be claiming that all Jewish High Priests pre-Jesus are really Christians" You are really jumping to conclusions here. That the Second Temple period is of interest to Christianity has to do with the religion's origins in this era. Where do you find any claims that Jews are Christians?

"Because Christian theology" Somewhat irrelevant. Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Theology work group is a semi-active group, with barely any users. While Christianity covers a lot of historical topics.

" This is a matter of scope" My point exactly. Your claims about scope have nothing to do with the Projects themselves, or the texts where they define their scope.

"but my hopes aren't high because that Wikiproject seems largely inactive" Actually its quite active recently. There have been long debates about a controversial revamp in the Sumerian King List, the Old Assyrian period has had a change in scope, and and several articles were re-rated. Dimadick (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is very frustrating, because you are not responding to the substance of my comments. You are missing my point - you don't have to agree with me, but you're acting as if you don't even understand what I'm writing. Very very very many articles concern things are "of interest to Christianity". So what? You are adding the WikiProject Christianity tag to articles, however, which implies something a lot stronger than "is of interest to" whether you realize it or not. Let's back up to the very, VERY bare basics here:

Wikiprojects have a defined scope of articles. (A "WikiProject" with an overly general scope is just the Village Pump, which is fine, but it's its own thing.)
This scope specifies articles directly related to them. Not merely "of interest." This is especially obvious for history articles, as often understanding the history of one country / region requires understanding its neighbors - but that doesn't mean that the Germany article should be part of WikiProject France.
Ergo, to complete the analogy, by putting later Jewish High Priests in Wikiproject Christianity, you are saying that they directly ARE part of Christianity. For characters like King David, revered in Judaism / Christianity / Islam, no problem - David really is part of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. For Jewish High Priests who reigned long after the Christian Old Testament was closed - no. When I brought up Christian theology, some random workgroup was the absolute last thing from my mind, I was talking about actual, real-world Christianity. Are matters like the succesion of Jewish High Priests "of interest"? Sure. Are they directly part of Christianity? No. That's why I brought up the offensive connotations above. Again, I understand that you apparently view WikiProjects as "any random thing of interest", but if you pretend to be me or random other editors for a moment - assume that there's a tighter relationship here - then you can hopefully see how such a stance is problematic-to-offensive.

For WikiProject Ancient Near East, you once again manage to fail to respond to my statement at all. Yes, there are discussions on individual talk pages, but I see very little discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East, which is the exact thing your WikiProject banners are linking too, as a reminder. I'm only going to say this one last time, but I seriously do not care about ratings or re-ratings. It has nothing to do with my point and is beyond irrelevant. The question is scope. I'm looking for you to defend to me that WikiProject Near East actually covers the Hellenistic period, which you did vaguely earlier by mentioning some other Hellenistic & Roman era articles in the WikiProject, but you haven't responded at all since. Anyway, I give up at this point: I guess I'll start the discussion. But the burden is on you: right now, the front page of that WikiProject clearly has no indication that the Hellenistic period is in scope. If the discussion goes nowhere, I ask that you respect that, and if you feel the need to fix articles, to remove WikiProject Near East from unfitting articles, not add it to articles that are not part of the scope. SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Near_East#Scope_of_this_WikiProject, if you have opinions there. SnowFire (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikiprojects have a defined scope of articles. " The scope is not defined by you. You place arbitrary limits and expect anyone to follow your lead.

"but that doesn't mean that the Germany article should be part of WikiProject France." In several cases it means just that. Alsace is a region in France where "German dialects were spoken in Alsace for most of its history", and its a key place for the German Reformation. You make arbitrary distinctions again.

"that they directly ARE part of Christianity" Your point being? Christianity itself was a minor Jewish sect in the relevant period, and several of the priests are directly relevant to its history.

" you apparently view WikiProjects as "any random thing of interest" " The opposite. I view them as useful tools to actually rate the articles, and keep them in wide-umbrella projects. Narrow-scoped WikiProjects tend to be dead ends. I have seen far too many of them fail.

"but I seriously do not care about ratings or re-ratings." Then, I would suggest Wikipedia is not for you. There are people actually trying to improve articles just to rate them from C to B, to GA... etc. Which is them the most use anyone can expect from a WikiProject.

"mentioning some other Hellenistic & Roman era articles in the WikiProject, but you haven't responded at all since." Becaquse I think its pointless. The Project does not end with Alexander the Great, and articles such as List of kings of Babylon end in the 3rd century AD.

"not add it to articles that are not part of the scope." Again you define the scope of a WikiProject without any text supporting your view. Dimadick (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well this has clearly gone nowhere. "you define the scope of a WikiProject without any text supporting your view" - I linked you directly to the WikiProject page. Twice! That's literally the Source of Truth on the matter! Here's Number 3: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ancient_Near_East#Templates_and_resources. And you should read the linked WikiProject discussion as well: Category:Ancient Near East is the core of the WikiProject, and it explicitly says "Dates before (ca.) 3000 BCE and after 330 BCE are not usually included in the term "Ancient Near East"". I had assumed you had read this, but clearly I was in error. But even if it didn't say that, that doesn't matter, because these scopes are direct statements of what IS included, not statements of what is excluded. In other words, you, the person adding the category, needs to show it's in scope if it's contested. Not me. The default is "it doesn't go in." (Imagine if someone were to add some irrelevant article to a WikiProject - adding Washington DC to WikiProject China or something - that should be reverted because there's nothing saying that American cities are in scope at Wikipedia:WikiProject China. It doesn't need to write out "don't stick American cities in this Wikiproject"; that is assumed.) This isn't complicated.
  - Your comments on Alsace show a STUNNING inability to "get the point". That's EXACTLY the point I was making: that Germany is very relevant to France! And for a topic like Alsace, it could well be in both projects. But for the Germany article itself, even though it's relevant to France, it absolutely should not go in WikiProject France, and people would laugh at you if you did so. Borderline stuff goes in both! Other articles goes in just one or the other, even if it's still kind of interest to the other WikiProject!
  - We're clearly going in a loop on Christianity - Judaism, so I'm just going to revert you. Please do not revert back and trust me on this one.
  - For ratings: Why are we even discussing this still? WikiProjects are useful for discussion and collaboration. Ratings inspiring people to improve articles is a tertiary thing at best. But none of this matters so let's just let it drop. Please.
  - The reason the List of kings of Babylon article is a good part of the project is because of its material that DOES cover the project. This isn't hard to understand, tons of articles straddle multiple categories, but that doesn't mean that every topic an article touches is also part of every related Wikiproject - that would be utter madness, as a Franco-German person now implies that all French articles are German and vice-versa? Anyway, let's put this one on hold as well, as we can see how the WikiProject itself responds. If you think I'm a fool, fine, but can you trust the actual members? SnowFire (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tanya Trask5.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tanya Trask5.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firmament

Hi, you contributed to the article Firmament. You may wish to weigh in on the controversy about recent deletions that I have just highlighted on that articles talk page. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to archive your page

Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. If you need help, just check out the guide over at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[plant-1] Cite error: The named reference plant was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Homosexualität_und_Staatsräson._Männlichkeit,_Homophobie_und_Politik_in_Deutschland_1900-1945-2] 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).

[Holocaust:_Gay_activists_press_for_German_apology-3] Cite error: The named reference Holocaust: Gay activists press for German apology was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[international-4] Cite error: The named reference international was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[homosexuals-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.

[EBLCM-7] "Lucifer" in Encyclopaedia Britannica]

[Auffarth-8] Auffarth, Christoph; Stuckenbruck, Loren T., eds. (2004). The Fall of the Angels. Leiden: BRILL. p. 62. ISBN 978-9-00412668-8.

[9] Astronomica 2. 4 (trans. Grant)

[10] Metamorphoses 2. 112 ff (trans. Melville)

[11] Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3. 19

[12] Francis Andrew March, Latin Hymns with English Notes (Douglass Series of Christian Greek and Latin Writers), vol. 1, p. 218: "Lucifer: God – Christ is here addressed as the true light bringer, in distinction from the planet Venus. Such etymological turns are common in the hymns. [...] This description of the King of Babylon was applied by Tertullian and others to Satan, and the mistake has led to the present meanings of Lucifer. See Webster's Dictionary."

[13] Calvin, John (2007). Commentary on Isaiah. Vol. I:404. Translated by John King. Charleston, S.C.: Forgotten Books.

[14] Ridderbos, Jan (1985). The Bible Student’s Commentary: Isaiah. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency. p. 142.

[15] "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 17 June 2015. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

[:7-16] Okey. Venice and its Story. p. 167.

[:6-17] Cite error: The named reference :6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[18] Gallo, Rudolfo (1927). "La tomba di Enrico Dandolo in Santa Sofia a Constantinople". Rivista mensile della Citta di Venezia. 6: 270–83.

[19] Kerry William Bate. 1978. "The English Origins of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Errington Family." New England Historical and Genealogical Register 132(1978): 44-50

[20] Kerry William Bate. 1978. "The English Origins of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Errington Family." New England Historical and Genealogical Register 132(1978): 44-50

[21] ttp://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/lincoln1572.htm

[23] BBC (8 June 2019). "May bank holiday 2020 changed for VE day anniversary". Retrieved 9 June 2019.

[24] Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (7 June 2019). "2020 May bank holiday will be moved to mark 75th anniversary of VE Day". Retrieved 9 June 2019. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[25] Rofé, pp.4–5

[FOOTNOTERogerson2003-26] Rogerson 2003.

[27] "The six men accused of inciting Kenya's post-election violence". The Christian Science Monitor. 15 December 2010.

[28] Bernard Namunane (8 March 2011). "Ocampo Six ordered to appear at Hague". Daily Nation. Retrieved 10 May 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[a]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]