User talk:Dallyripple

Bend so cold cosncisnch fucbskc f — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.3.191.175 (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (October 2002)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (October 2002), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (October 2002) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: Article is nothing more than a timeline of events already covered in the article War in Afghanistan (2001–present). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (October 2002), please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (October 2002) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Template: History of Afghanistan
I noticed that you took a interest in the Template:History of Afghanistan. Recently I re-added the Hotaki dynasty to the template. Another user deleted it. I would appreciate any comments you might have at Template talk:History of Afghanistan. --Bejnar 17:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Afghan timelines
Hi,

I was the originator and author of most of the information in the Afghan timelines from 2000 to 2004. I see that the names of all these articles have been changed to "Timeline of the War in Afghanistan". Although a lot of the information in those timelines deals with the war, there is also a lot of information in those timelines that have to do with democracy, art, health, and culture. It is a misnomer to call them timelines "of the War in Afghanistan". It is really better suited to call them generically timelines "of Afghanistan." That generic title helps cover the other topics covered in these timelines.

I wanted to change these titles back, but I wanted to discuss the matter with you first.

Sincerely,

KingTurtle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingturtle (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of Afghanistan
Welcome back. I see you reverted by changes to Timeline of Afghanistan. I understand that. I think I'll create an infobox with the timelines I was trying to include. Kingturtle (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Timeline of Croatian history, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Split (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Timeline of Portuguese history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Vizcaya, Polls, Ampurias, Beresford, Portucale and Monchique

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Anatolian beyliks
Why did you omit Anatolian beyliks from the History of Turkey template? Kavas (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of Turkish history, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican People's Party, Hanım and Progressive Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Timeline of United States history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Hatch Act, Motor Carrier Act, DuMont, Immigration Act, Transatlantic cable, Treaty of Westminster and Lame-duck


 * Timeline of Albanian history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Scutari and Angevin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of Romanian history
Hi! Nice work on the Timeline of Romanian history. I restored the wikitables I overwritten earlier. Sorry, edit conflict. Looks good now. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was thinking of dividing the timeline by centuries, similar to the Timeline of Croatian history I've recently been working on.  I feel it makes the TOC look cleaner and eliminates the need to make arbitrary decisions on where periods begin and end. I see you're one of the main contributors to the article; what do you think?
 * Keeping the conversation in one place ;-) I think is very nice! The only thing, you removed the History of Romania from the right side. It is fine but maybe the top navigation that you created could be positioned in its place, i.e on the right side or even better, be a floating navigation. The reason is, once you start scrolling down, you no longer have any fast way to jump to other sections. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no way to jump between sections before I added the wikitable formatting. Do you mean the links to the main articles?  I think you're absolutely right and those should stay.  A long main article template after the lead section or underneath the century headers could work for that.  The floating navigation sounds really cool, but I've never seen one.  Is there a link? Dallyripple (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, having the table sortable (I can do that next) and having an image column for a small image like WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/List of castra in Romania would make it even cooler.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I love the images idea. I don't know what a timeline would be sorted by, though, if not chronologically. (Sorry about the two responses; I ran into an edit conflict :P) Dallyripple (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a sample table for Neolithic. Also no need for the Date column in Prehistory sections. I guess we both want to do a lot ;-) Where are you based?--Codrin.B (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh yeah we do. Chicago.  I've put up my idea of the prehistory sections; feel free to revert if you don't like it.  I'll start resectioning the article in a little bit.
 * I really want to revert back or re-add those Paleolithic, Neolithic, Ancient Times and Early Middle ages sections as I plan to add content. They can be sub-divided by centuries later (or as a parallel breakdown). The rest looks really great. Let me know if you can put them back. Thanks for all this work!--Codrin.B (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I'll stop for now so we don't step on each other's toes. I want to keep the grouping by easy to read names like Bronze Age, Middle Ages etc under which I can add See also, Main etc, and add centuries as parallel alternative sections. Ideally the centuries could be displayed on the right side, in parallel with the main section, not sure how to do it technically yet. It is not easy but I think is doable. Thanks again --Codrin.B (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Man, the TOC looks amazing right now. I think I have a way to work the parallel sections.  What are the dates for the chalcolithic and Dacian / Roman Dacian / Migration periods? Dallyripple (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some approximate dates to the TOC, however is not that simple. Some named periods overlap with other periods. Not all items in the TOC will be sections, some will be just shortcuts to somewhere in the sections. Would be great if you can add the centuries in parallel somehow. Maybe   with some anchors?--Codrin.B (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the best I could do with the TOC for now. I'll wait for your changes. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you know about the < timeline > tag? I took this from Iron Age:

--Codrin.B (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 1931 Yugoslav Constitution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Banovina


 * Timeline of Latvian history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Latgalian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of United States history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Spanish Timeline
I have undone your reversion for the reasons shown on theTalk:Timeline of Spanish history page. Please leave your reply there if it is relevant to that article, or otherwise on User talk:Timpo

Additionally private e-mail is available on my User:Timpo page Timpo (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

National timelines
Why did you move the subcategories into historical timelines? Now the main category page is essentially unreadable.

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of history of Pakistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coca-Cola Cup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Input to discussion
Your input is welcome on two discussions which may be of interest. Thanks, --KarlB (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Proposed deletion (or renaming) of the following categories: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21
 * 2) Proposed deletion of the following article [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles]
 * 3) Politics in the British Isles
 * 1) Proposed deletion of the following article [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles]
 * 2) Politics in the British Isles
 * 1) Politics in the British Isles

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Chinese history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argun. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Chinese history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of German history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterloo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

London Protocol (2004)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of London Protocol (2004), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/about/institutes/patientsafetyservicequality/cpssq_publications/resources_tools/the_london_protocol/.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of London Protocol (2004)


A tag has been placed on London Protocol (2004) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/about/institutes/patientsafetyservicequality/cpssq_publications/resources_tools/the_london_protocol/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. Qpalzmmzlapq (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve London Protocol (1862)
Hi, I'm Crystallizedcarbon. Dallyripple, thanks for creating London Protocol (1862)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add references from independent reliable sources to the article to meet our verifiability and notablility requirements.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

London Protocol (1832)
I believe that a redirect is much more helpful. Please write the article quoting sources, if you beleve it's useful.Xx236 (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of German history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frankish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Godfrid


A tag has been placed on Godfrid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 removed 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. Music1201 (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of German history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lambert. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of United States history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of United States history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

First a note of thanks.
I have followed your lead in developing the Virginia Constitutional Convention daughter articles, and reducing the main article Virginia Conventions by a third in the first pass at summarization. Four articles for WP:PROD proposed deletion follow. Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen some of your edits to the daughter articles, they're very good. I don't object to any of these deletions. Thanks for the heads up. Dallyripple (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Virginia Constitutional Commission of 1927


The article Virginia Constitutional Commission of 1927 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This is mirrored information from Virginia Conventions without additional research; it is not wp:notable as a stand alone article in that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond this stub information. The first three paragraphs here are from the main article and are duplicated in four articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Virginia Limited Constitutional Convention of 1945


The article Virginia Limited Constitutional Convention of 1945 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This is mirrored information from Virginia Conventions without additional research; it is not wp:notable as a stand alone article in that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond this stub information. The first three paragraphs from the main article are duplicated in four articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Virginia Limited Constitutional Convention of 1956


The article Virginia Limited Constitutional Convention of 1956 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This is mirrored information from Virginia Conventions without additional research; it is not wp:notable as a stand alone article in that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond this stub information. The first three paragraphs from the main article are duplicated in four articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Virginia Constitutional Commission of 1969


The article Virginia Constitutional Commission of 1969 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This is mirrored information from Virginia Conventions without additional research; it is not wp:notable as a stand alone article in that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond this stub information. The first three paragraphs from the main article are duplicated in four articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Dallyripple!

Wikipedia editor PRehse just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Needs sources"

To reply, leave a comment on PRehse's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Some thoughts on Virginia Conventions
Thanks for the encouragement at the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861 and the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850. How do you post those “editor thanked you” messages? Thanks to you for going ahead and linking so many of the Members of Congress back to the Convention articles.

Following the example of the delegate list for Virginia Ratification Convention, I created the same for those two in our TOPIC, along with charts for Fifth Virginia Convention, Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830, Wheeling Convention, Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864, Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868 noting the African-Americans and Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1902 noting the votes on proclamation.

I cannot find the way to make these related articles a Topic, when I went to a discussion page on the subject, an editor suggested adding the first four Revolutionary Conventions, but those Conventions (also called Congresses in the literature) did not write a constitution. And no help in creating a new "topic". If a topic were to be made, there are some editorial amendment I’d like to make to more nearly standardize the names, such as calling out 1901-1902 or 1850-1851 or 1867-1868 as is done for the 1829-1830 Convention, and replacing “Loyalist" with “Constitutional" in the 1864 Convention, because since that writing I have read reliable sources that say that Constitution was de facto in force for civilian governance in Virginia until 1870 — even though proclaimed in 1864 as were those in 1776 and 1902. But then all of the links to conventions would need to be updated -- unless redirects were set up, though I’ve seen bots do the task in detail elsewhere. Any thoughts?

I have LINKED names as I have written up start-class bios for delegates to Conventions who were also members of the General Assembly, -- for the charts of Conventions in 1830 and 1850 so far — using Pulliam’s “The Constitutional Conventions of Virginia from the foundation of the Commonwealth to the present time” (1901), and Brenaman’s “A history of Virginia Conventions” (1902). Recently I’ve been strengthening the articles with a second source for each article, Swem’s “A register of the General Assembly of Virginia, 1776-1918, and of the Constitutional Conventions”, just acquired this month. In the charts I have UNLINKED names of those not noted in either Pulliam or Brenaman, or leaving unwritten the stubs for those whose only public office was as delegate to one Convention, or those who also held lesser offices of clerk of court, sheriff, etc. It seemed to me that a sea of red links is a sea of despair, though I suppose they can be reimposed if wp:mos indicates that.

This reliance on Pulliam is problematic only for the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868, since he only notes a few white Conservatives there, no moderate Republicans, no Radicals nor any of the twenty African Americans of any description. Some more information can be had at the Library of Virginia’s online Encyclopedia Virginia, which I mean to use to fill in some few Republican bios, and I’ve just now purchased online a volume of Jackson’s “Negro office-holders in Virginia, 1865-1895” to acquire additional members of the General Assembly on the radar.

Usually my start class bios are reviewed within a day or two. Some reason James E. Stewart has not. Could you take a look for me? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

VirginiaHistorian,

There's a "thank" link under the particular revision in the article history. Maybe that's only in the browser. I love these tables. They add some heft to the articles, not only valuable information but a lot of it.

I don't know anything about topics. You don't mean categories? I agree with you on standardizing the names, whether or not the pages are linked in any other way. And I agree also on renaming the article on the 1864 convention. If that constitution was effective, calling it a loyalist convention sounds political, almost pro-Confederate.

I agree with you on the red links too. Haha. I like your characterization. Folks who defend a sea of red links will defend them as an invitation to write the articles but won't write the articles themselves.

Your article on James E. Stewart looks good to me, though I might omit the picture of the Virginia Capitol. But I think article review is a Wikipedia function that someone with a title has to perform.

Dallyripple (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've posted the proposal at the article Talk to change the article title at Talk:Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864, substituting "Convention" for "Loyalist", with the Virginia Encyclopedia citation for reference and a brief rationale. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Muhyi Abdel-Hussein moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Muhyi Abdel-Hussein, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Imperial election of 1376 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Imperial election of 1376 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 Articles for deletion/Imperial election of 1376 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. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 20:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note this is a group nom -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 23:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Muhyi Abdel-Hussein concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Muhyi Abdel-Hussein, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Muhyi Abdel-Hussein


Hello, Dallyripple. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Muhyi Abdel-Hussein".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of Romanian history
Hi.

Wouldn't it be better to have the range of all centuries at the top so that users could easily jump to a century that they are interested in?

Otherwise they have to scroll through BC centuries and such...

It makes editing easier as well.

Maybe add it at the top of your cleanup and still leave the other ones for easier browsing inside millennia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Treaty of Trausnitz
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dallyripple, thanks for creating Treaty of Trausnitz!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Treaty of Ulm (1326) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Treaty of Ulm (1326), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. The Duke of Nonsense What is necessary for thee? 18:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Treaty of Ulm (1326) has been accepted
 Treaty of Ulm (1326), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sam Sailor 17:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Treaty_of_Ulm_(1326) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

A page you started (Rebellion of the Pilots) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Rebellion of the Pilots.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of June 1198 imperial election


The article June 1198 imperial election has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "does not meet wikipedia's notability policy"

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 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 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. Yr Enw (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)