User talk:D. F. Schmidt

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 10:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

History of the Papacy
You should consider your words more carefully. Just because you disagree with an edit doesn't make it "unjust." The redirect was in response to a proposal to merge the two articles, and I don't see anything in your revert that addresses the question of whether the two topics should be merged or not. Before undoing a merge, you should present some argument that the merge should be undone. And again, stop throwing around ridiculous terms like "unjust." | Mr. Darcy talk 03:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You could have responded on your talk page. I had it watched. In any case, I still don't see a reference to any such proposal, let alone a vote. And if you see the talk page, you may see that I did present an argument. While it's not an argument that takes up a lot of space, you can see it at Talk:History of the Papacy. And note the list of various eras at the top of that page. Clearly you might see that History of the Vatican City does not cover that entire span. D. F. Schmidt 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The merger proposal was made here (second-to-last item in the Jan 2006 section) by the page's author. If the history of the Papacy and the history of Vatican City are inextricably linked, and either of the two articles would be too short to stand on its own (as appears to be the case of the Papacy article, which is still just a collection of links), then they should remain merged until there's sufficient content to flesh both articles out. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case that they are indeed inextricably linked, I would assume that the History of the Papacy would be the parent of the History of the Vatican City. In fact, that is how the author intended the merger in the first place. "The latter [history of the Vatican City] could be merged with it [history of the Papacy] as the last section." If one was to be larger than the other, the History of the Papacy would be larger, because the History of the Vatican City is a rather small subset (with respect to content, at least). Perhaps the pope has always sat in the Vatican (other than the Avignon period), but still the importance of the city itself in that history is rather small, I suspect. But personally, I feel that the history of the Vatican City should remain a separate article because it seems as though it covers a rather small span, but in quite a good detail. D. F. Schmidt 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Misc
I just saw on your user page that you currently attend UCF. What are you studying? El Cubano 01:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Civil engineering. It's kicking my tail, but I'm not willing to change my major. D. F. Schmidt 11:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome. I was class of 2004, Honors in Computer Engineering. El Cubano 15:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Segway PT
Hello there, I am very sorry for the fact that I somehow reverted your edit; I can assure you this was a mistake and I do not know how it happened, but looking at the edit I shall restore it in a minute. Also, since you seem to have taken offence to the word "nonsense", let me just point out that the revert was not done by hand, but rather using a program that speeds up reverting (as is required for the vast quantities of vandalism on here), and the message itself simply a template - i.e. not my words. So sorry again, and keep up the good work! LibLord 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no big problem for me, but you can maybe see why I took offense at it. I hadn't seen such a message from a bot before, or maybe it just didn't look like text from one. If possible, you might want to reword that text to make it either more obvious that it's a bot, or tone it down a bit. D. F. Schmidt 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Found poetry
Hi. I noticed you have edited found poetry a while back. The article has stagnated. It is a target for vandalism. Please help us expand the article, or at least put this article on your watchlist to help fight off vandalism. --Justpassin (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones WikiProject Now Open!
I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

.999... < 1 ?
Hi, I just saw the detailed discussion at 0.999... and thought you might enjoy my reprint at arxiv:0811.0164 Katzmik (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quasi-War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cutter ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Quasi-War check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Quasi-War?client=notify 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) 09:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)