User talk:Dimadick/Archive 1

It is hard to figure out which comments on Talk:Adolf Hitler are yours and which are by other people. Please try to make this clearer, thanks. --zero 09:24, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello Dimadick! I noticed your corrections in Roman emperor. When you do them, can you please update List of Roman emperors accordingly? Thanks, Muriel Victoria 14:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

WikiProject Ancient Egypt
Hello, I see you haven't been online recently, but I'll drop this off here anyway in case you show up again. I pleasantly recall (from discussions on the Akhenaten page) your iterest in Egypt. A group of people have been discussing the standardization of the names & dates of rulers in this subject, and have a page for their project. As a result of this discussion, they've put together a list of rulers & dates as a talking point for their proposed standard, at WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Temp, if you'd be interested in looking at it; you'd also be most welcome to join the discussion on the talk pages. Noel 09:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Demetrius Palaeologus
I am interested to know your source for fact that Mehmed II has married daughter of Demetrius. Looking in works of Gibbon I have find that yes Mehmed II has meeting for matrimony with Demetrius daughter but after looking her she is returned to father. If nothing else there has not been favorite wife in life of any Turkish sultan until 1550. Rjecina.

I found an article on her in a Greek encyclopedia. I think it was "Nea Domi" which has a very detailed article on the Dynasty and about fifty of its members. Confirmed it from geneological trees of the Dynasty in printed sources and similar references in Internet geneologies. The "favorite" was taken from only the encyclopedia article and can be removed if it gives the wrong impression of a politically influential wife.

Mehmed similarly wed daughters from the ruling dynasty of the Empire of Trebizond in an apparent effort to establish himself as its successor.

Gibbon sometimes went out of his way to ridicule his subjects. See his references for Saint George for example: "From this obscure and servile origin he raised himself by the talents of a parasite; and the patrons, whom he assiduously flattered, procured for their worthless dependent a lucrative commission, or contract, to supply the army with bacon. His employment was mean; he rendered it infamous." I have yet to find his sources on George being an army supplier User:Dimadick

I have make little change with writen reasons. To tell truth I have expected that you will answer on my discussion page. In the end of article you can add name of your source. You can say that I support Thomas in the end because he has been from my reading more or less warrior, and Demetrius not. Hope that you can agree that heir if we look legal things is Thomas, if nothing else because ruler must be of ortodox fatih ( this put questions about Andreas because I don't know his faith ). Yes I know for brothers friendship John VIII, Constantine XI, Thomas. I have questions for you. Has Osman lived outside or inside Byzantine empire when he has started his war against Byzantium and second Andronicus V son of John VII has lived or not ? User:rjecina

I have information about Andronicus V from yugoslav ( serbian ) book: John VIII from around 1989. There are all Palaeologus family members. Simple telling book is about John VIII family. In that Andronicus V has died before 10 birthday ( in 1399 he is dead ). Must important source for that book has been George Sphrantzes : The Fall of Byzantine empire. User:rjecina

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Robert Reid (bishop)
Thanks for moving Bishop Reid to what looks a much better title: sorry I'm not up enough on naming conventions. A minor point which I was chased on earlier is that the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) now recommends not linking dates unless they're particularly significant. I quite liked a lot of linked dates, but others feel they break up the flow too much, as emphasised in Make only links relevant to the context. Don't think it matters much in this article, though.. ...dave souza 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is an instruction on consistency but not a rule. "The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules". I consistently link year pages because I tend to use "what links here" to see what a year page is connected to. If the trend continues, year pages become isolated and loose their usefulness. User:Dimadick

Thalheim
Just for your information: There are about 20-30 Thalheims in Germany (including different spellings like Dalheim, Talheim). When you made the comment about Mother Meera,that Thalheim still is in West-Germany, I am sitting there right now. mizar 18:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If not Thalheim, Saxony then might you point out which Thalheim? User:Dimadick


 * Sure.Its Thalheim in Hessen, belonging to the Community 'Dornburg' Postal Code 65599 - mizar 20:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regnant?
Sorry for deleting without consultation. Do you really want the word to appear in the text of William Stanley, or just form part of a link?--shtove 14:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A link is enough. Anything that can point out that Elizabeth was not one of several Tudor Queen consorts. Do not assume most readers get the difference at first glance. User:Dimadick

Sarah Siddons
Hi, I don't think we can really mark her out as a welsh actress unless we can show she or family regarded themselves as welsh (which I don't think they did). Thanks Arniep 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ever noticed her place of birth in Wales? User:Dimadick
 * Hi, many people may have been born in Wales at that time but did not consider themselves Welsh. Sarah's family AFAIK had no family connection to Wales and they were not permanantly resided there. Also, Wales has not been a separate state for an extremely long time. Arniep 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

18th century changes
Aren't the illustrations a little Eurocentric? --Brunnock 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I wanted to use an illustration of the Qianlong Emperor of China and to mention expansion of Chinese control over Central Asia and Southeast Asia but had trouble with the captioning. Any ideas for replacing some of the images with ones more relevant to Asia or Africa? User:Dimadick
 * Most of my history books don't come with pictures. There's a new book called National Geographic's Visual History of the World which probably has pointers. --Brunnock 12:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
75px|left Hi. I, SoothingR would like to commend you on your edits pertaining to the article Anthypolokhagos. Edits like that give Wikipedia the christmas spirit which we need so much. Especially today.

Thanks for your peaceful and useful contributions, and I wish you a merry christmas - and ofcourse - a happy new year.

Best wishes, SoothingR(pour) 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Queen consort
Thanks for changing "queen" to "Queen consort" in my item on Maria Sofia of Naples. Nice touch that didn't occur to me. It's a good idea to note the change you make. At least I think it is. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia and am still groping around. Happy New Year.Jeffmatt 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Roosevelt
Re your recent edits, I am told it is no longer Wikipedia policy to wikify individual dates. Adam 11:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Women
Yes my motives for removing the Women scholars category was mainly due to it not existing. I would not try to get it removed if it existed and was well stocked and I am certainly not going to bother trying to delete Category:Women root and branch; that would cause fun. MeltBanana 14:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Muscovites
Dima, please stop spamming unreferenced trivia to Romanov articles. What are the first-hand 16th-century sources claiming that Filaret or Mikhail Feodorvich were born in Moscow? If you want to do something helpful for Wikipedia, please check Portal:Russia/Things you can do. Thanks, Ghirla | talk 10:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to be snippy
You – and the rest of the Wikipedia community and all its users besides – are lucky I translate these articles at all. If you see some little thing that needs doing, like a link to the SS officer category, just do it and don't complain. It's what I do. Kelisi 19:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you were not the only one and it took me several hours to place people from Category:German people to more specific categories. This being the third or fourth time I have attempted to clean up the category in less than a month.

I apologise if I offended you but German articles seem to suffer systematic neglect. And proper categorisation would actually make your own and any other articles easier to locate. User:Dimadick

Cool!
Thanks for the link to the 1950s Electro! I had no idea anyone else had ever heard of him. That was so neat to see! — Tenebrae 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Scots
Just noticed you added Minnie the Minx to Category:Fictional Scots. What's your source for this? I'm unaware of it ever being revealed that she's from Scotland. BillyH 10:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the character but the third paragraph starts: "Minnie is Scottish". User:Dimadick
 * Interesting. The paragraph was added by an anon in October 2005, but it originally stems from a forum post in April 2003. I've found no other references to her being Scottish other than Wikipedia mirrors, so I've removed the category and mention from the article. BillyH 11:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dandy and Beano characters are all from Dundee in Scotland (their real-life 'birthplace', as the home of D C Thomson publications) unless proven otherwise. Minnie is regarded as Dundonian. She is immortalised in bronze, along with Desperate Dan, in a statue there. She has her catapult... Silverwhistle 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your reverting of my link clearing
Hi, I noticed you recently reverted my link clearing at Storm (comics) and Rachel Summers. I figure they are not acceptable based on External links, and also the fact that the Marvel Database link was spam, it was added by the site host to numerous pages across Wikipedia. The link I added in was per External links. Basically, it's acceptable to add one fan site, but with comics characters there are so many fan sites it is unfair to add merely one, and the guidelines then direct us to add a link to an open source directory instead. I'd appreciate your thoughts on a way forward on this, because although I don't want to edit war I believe my actions are grounded in policy, especially with regards the Marvel Database link. Hiding talk 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the links you removed where to more detailed profiles of the characters and could well serve as sources for future additions. I think what should be taken into account with this links is how useful the external link might be. If it only duplicates information already on the article then remove. I did not revert your changes in the articles on Invisible Woman and a hand full of other characters because I could not see anything substantial removed. User:Dimadick


 * There's consensus to remove Marvel Database and DC Database links added by the site host because it is spam. As to the rest, fair play. Hiding talk 20:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Palaeologus dynasty
I like very much what you have done with my articles about Byzantine despots of XV century. Can you please do that with my article about Theodore I Palaeologus which is in list for cleanup from december 2005. Thanks. rjecina

Succession Tables
Thanks for adding/cleaning up some of those. There's a problem with the one for Mary Cal Hollis, though, an extra line under Eric Chester, and I can't tell why that's appearing, maybe you would see what's doing it? Schizombie 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the Hollis article, I fixed it - it was missing the "end box."Schizombie

Georg von Boeselager
I have requested a peer review for this article. It's not quite ready for feature status and I'm not thinking of nominating it soon, but I have encountered several problems that I need help with. You are the only other editor of the article so far, so I just wanted to let you know about the request and invite you to review it. My thanks for any contributions you can make. --Joe 20:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization practices
I see that you have been adding the misnamed category "Fictional Heroines" to a number of articles. Per Naming conventions (capitalization), it should be named "Fictional heroines", and is currently on the list for speedy renaming to the correct form. I am in the process of moving the existing 200 or so articles with the incorrectly-capitalized category, and I would appreciate your assistance in this move, or at least your cooperation in using Category:Fictional heroines instead. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not create the category but merely noticed it was underpopulated. Once the new category is created, I would be glad to move the articles. User:Dimadick


 * Thanks for finishing up the moves. After 150 or so of those things, my fingers just got tired! One problem I foresee: your commendable creation of the new category may interfere with my speedy-rename nomination, as there is now a category in place with a non-trivial edit history. But we can let the admins sort that out, I suppose. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Queen Consorts
Why are you adding succession boxes for them, given that the position is only intermittently filled? Choess 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We have similar succession tables for Princes of Wales and other "intermittently filled" titles. With the rule being to point at the closest predecessor or successor. The boxes do point at years or dates as to not cause confusion. Actually we already had succession tables for consorts but not those preceeding Prince George of Denmark User:Dimadick

Medieval women
I noticed you've been adding pages to Category:Medieval women. Are you primarily interested in categorizing, or are you an editor as well? I've started a (proposed) WikiProject about medieval women and I'd be very grateful if you wanted to help! Cantara 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I categorize by existing categories and make additions and corrections when I think they are needed. I have worked on many of these articles before with either signed or unsigned edits. I am just glad than somebody else has taken an interest in them and intends to improve them further. I will see what I can do to help. User:Dimadick

Constantine II of Greece
I have already explained twice why you can't just revert all my edits to this article. If you do so again I will report you. Adam 09:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do but only if you explain what have you been removing from the article. At this point I consider you worse than a vandal as regards to the quality of the article. User:Dimadick

Comnenus
Why reverted? I added a disambiguation for Maria Comnena, and unlinked isolated years, in accordance with Manual of Style (dates and numbers) What's your problem? Colonies Chris 09:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is not a rule but a suggestion. The suggestion you mentioned applies to overlinking and suggests linking to specific dates. But in long historical articles which list key events in history dates can not be too specific. That does not mean the articles should not link to year pages or that year pages should not be updated to reflect them. Comnenus had no overlinking in the first place. Probably just the opposite.

Do notice that years and dates of key events should always be listed. Notice that even the Manual specifies: "So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it". From what I could see you blindly removed all year pages and left them unlinked. User:Dimadick
 * I didn't remove dates or year pages, nor links to full dates that allow date preferences to operate. I only removed unhelpful links to isolated years. The MoS makes my point exactly. It says (my bolding) unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links.


 * And I can see no strong reason to link these isolated years - linking them doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the article. It's extremely unlikely that anyone will ever want to click on them. Similarly, I removed the low-value links to France, Germany etc, in accordance with Only make links that are relevant to the context, and your revert has reinstated those too. Colonies Chris 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"It's extremely unlikely that anyone will ever want to click on them." Judging from my personal experience, I usualy use those links to browse through our timelines and find the historical context of the events. I would assume others are also able to that while the links remain. Germany perhaps should be replaced by the Holy Roman Empire to fit the context. User:Dimadick

Cecily Neville
Nice work with the lady Cecily Neville, especially the list of her children - Skysmith 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman
I thought you might like appreciate a quick Update on French Turn and Max Shachtman; you've recently contributed there and you might have seen that a moderation was attempted on some disputed edits made by User:Jacrosse. he agreed to the moderation but did not take part in it. It agreed to delete some unsupported and referenced claims (basically, that Shachtman's current, far from fragementing and collapeing into cold-war social democarcym actually effected a Leninist takeover, both of US social democracy and then of US neo-conseratism. At this point Jacrosse is engaging in obvious acts of vandalism without even beginning to comment on the Talk pages. Perhaps Jacrosse will sit down to Talk, however it seems unlikely. Arbitration may be on the cards. If you can spare a little time over the next week or two, I would appreciate it if you could pop into Talk:French Turn or Talk:Max Shachtman. Your contribution has been very valuable and, of course, the danger is that all parties in this dispute get tangled up and lose our way towards improving the entries. Thanks for the help you've already given. --Duncan 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get your creator information?
Hi, I just noticed that you've added creator information to several of the articles I've updated lately. That's great, but where are you pulling the information from? Is there a good resource for this? Thanks --El benito 18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For a listing of Marvel characters I use the "Master List Guide" of Jeff Christiansen, the creator of the "Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe". His listings include major and minor characters, some even ommited from the Marvel Chronology Project. They are pretty good in locating the first appearance of most characters. See: http://www.marvunapp.com/master/mastguid.htm

When I have the issue including the first appearance of the character and want to find or confirm the names of creators, I use the "Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators". The site attempts to list all magazines published by Marvel Comics since 1939, while listing the credits of their creators. See: http://www.maelmill-insi.de/UHBMCC/

For DC characters I use the "DC Chronology Project". Their Guide is a good starting point when searching for information on any given character. They are pretty useful in locating the first appearances of characters. Unfortunately they do not always list the name of creators but I can always search what information for this particular issue can be found after a google search. See: http://www.dcuguide.com/Who_Home.php

Another useful resource for DC history is the "DC Timeline". According to its owner "an attempt to list significant events in the history of DC Comics in as chronological order as possible. Most dates are the cover dates from the comics themselves." "Non-DC comics events listed are included because of their relevance to the history of DC Comics, not to their own companies." See: http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/dchistory/DCHISTORY-1.htm

A good resource for other American series characters is "Don Markstein's Toonopedia". Typically attempts to list both the first appearance and the credited creators of any featured character or series. Proceeds in giving a short introduction to them and their history. It isn't always accurate or updated and I have personally sent additional information and corrections to Don. But I know of no better resource for comics and animation from all genres. See: http://www.toonopedia.com/

For super-characters from arround the World, the "International Catalogue of Superheroes" is usely pretty good. Also lists first appearances and names of creators if known. See: http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/

As you can see I do not pull random names from my mind. But if there is an accuracy problem, please let me know. User:Dimadick

Doctor Strange
Just so I can update the footnote, or delete it entirely, do you know where the date of the 18th for Strange's birth comes from? Thanks! -- Tenebrae 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I found it in a very detailed history of Strange that includes images from issues focusing in his use but does not bother to note which issues. See: http://www.drstrange.nl/

I also keed finding Internet profiles who mention his parents as "Eugene and Beverly Strange" who also fail to mention their sources.

A site on the Origins of Doctor Strange Mentions that the incident with the drowning of his sister and other events of his early life come from "Doctor Strange, Sorcerer Supreme #45". Perhaps this flashback issue was the source we are searching for? User:Dimadick

Isabel Plantagenet
Can you add sources for the content you posted at Isabel Plantagenet? I'll change my AfD vote to keep if this gets sourced.--Isotope23 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I used two Internet sources which I consider to be mostly reliable:


 * A pedigree of the Bourchier family which uses two 19th century genealogies as its main sources.
 * Her profile in the Peerage.com site which uses "Britain's Royal Family:A Complete Genealogy" by Alison Weir as its main source.

I am still not certain of the order of children but the "Dictionary of National Biography" on her husband mentions William to be the oldest son, Henry the second, Humfrey (sic) the third and John the fourth one. User:Dimadick

Edits to articles on Bulgarian and Byzantine history
Dear Dimadick, Thank you for adding links and other improvements to these contributions. But please cease altering the more accurate renditions of names in the body texts to the less accurate forms, even if they reflect the basic Wikipedia entry, especially as they are already linked up correctly. The current English standard for the rendering of Byzantine names is the ODB (Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, 1991). To use anything else is both antiquated and a step back in terms of the field. Accordingly, I have been writing names in agreement with the ODB standard and linking them up with the Latinizing listing in the database. There is no reason to alter the text when it does not present a problem in the link-up. If, on the other hand, you insist on Latinizing, at least make sure that the resulting text is consistent within the article and you edit all of the occurrences. I am concerned with both accuracy and consistency. Thank you, Imladjov 17:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am Greek and actually more familiar with the forms of the names you use for the Byzantines. But I am afraid most readers will be left scratching their heads if you use forms unfamiliar to them. And more often than not I try to link to the actual title of an article and avoid a redirect. You often forget to add "of Bulgaria" and other Wikipedia standards of naming.

Otherwise your efforts are great. If you have trouble with the name of an article you can always sign up and move it yourself or converse with anybody opposed to your move. User:Dimadick

Thanks for the response. I am a relatively new user, but I am pretty sure that writing Andronikos III Palaiologos for the Latin Andronicus III Palaeologus does not result in the creation of a redirect. And I make sure to link up the term to the actual Wikipedia entry. Personally I think the ODB standard does not go far enough, but at least it is a relatively consistent standard generally accepted by us Byzantinists. As for adding the country's name to a ruler's name, your point is well taken. I have, however, linked up to such a name as I found in a pre-existing Wikipedia entry precisely to avoid a problem in the linking. So if the entry I found was just "Ivailo", how do I know that writing the link as "Ivailo of Bulgaria" would work without complications? Similarly, all the Serbian rulers seem to be listed just under their names.

I am glad you generally approve, and I plan on expanding more articles on Byzantine and Balkan medieval rulers. Best, Imladjov 16:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In reference to your user page, if you look in the Oxford English Dictionary, you will discover a verb, 'born', the past participle of which is 'borned'. It has some meanings different from the passive form of 'bear' and some meanings which are similar. Its use by Faulkner suggests that it is a dialectal variant in the Southern United States, although it is found in such mainstream writers as Plath and in the Christian Science Monitor and Washington Post. 212.205.226.181 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anna Leonowens
Please do not start a revert war. Comments on this page reflect your habit of reverting without notice or explanation. Opportunity was given for feedback before the edit, which you chose to disregard. If you do not like an edit, please post your objection on the Talk page or build upon the edit. &mdash; J M Rice 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the talk page does not reflect at all what your problem with the previous version was. You simply stated "POV" and then most of the article was lost. I have a habit to revert whatever article seems to be vandalised without explanation.

Please state what your grievances were. User:Dimadick


 * I have no grievances. Your assertion that my edits are vandalism is ridiculous. Also is your claim that I "simply stated POV".  I stated the problems with the article and gave fair warning on the Talk page.  I did more than that, and other users followed up with more details.  I think you need to review Wikipedia policy and proper usage.  You do not discuss reasons for edits in the Edit summary, as you have, but on the Talk page.  I am restoring the edits. Please do not revert them again. Please be aware of the Three Revert Rule. I do not think you would like to be banned. &;mdash; J M Rice 20:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not mind if it got other editors interested in the article. Up till now Patiwat has explained his problems with the article and corrected it section by section. You on the other hand have removed all references to W.S. Bristowe and his research, all family history, the historical context and relations with the court and even the section about depictions in fiction. From what I can see the article suffers in quality under your version. User:Dimadick

Saints Wikiproject
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

Thanks! --evrik 16:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have an interest in genealogy but never actually thought about it in social terms. On the other hands estimations of numbers of descedants can hardly be authoritative. But take into account the following:

1) Descedants of Sophia of Hanover who are not Roman Catholic or through illegitimate lines form the Line of succession to the British Throne. Which currently includes 907 individuals. I think the ommited Roman Catholic and/or illegitimated descedants likely add several hundred individuals to that list.

2) Her mother Elizabeth of Bohemia was also mother to Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine, Elisabeth of Bohemia, Princess Palatine, Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern and a couple of lesser figures. These

These children have had a large number of descedants of their own. For example Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine was father to Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine. Her son Philippe II, Duke of Orléans is ancestral to all later members of the House of Orleans. Her daughter Elizabeth Charlotte of Orleans was mother to Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor and ancestral to all later members of the Habsburg-Lorraine line.

3) Elizabeth of Bohemia was a daughter of James I of England/James VI of Scotland. His other children include Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, Charles I of England, Robert Stuart, Duke of Kintyre.

Charles I of England has had several descedants of his own. He was father to (among others) Charles II of England, James II of England and Henrietta Anne Stuart. Our article on Charles II alone mentions 26 illegitimate children of whom several had further descedants.

4) I think James I/VI has had thousands of descedants to this day. Which all descent from his mother Mary I of Scotland and maternal grandfather James V of Scotland.

James V was also father to "seven known illegitimate children". The most notable of them was James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray. His daughter and successor Elizabeth Stuart, 2nd Countess of Moray was ancestor to twenty more Earls of Moray to this day.

These line of Earls of Moray have had descentants among several aristocratic families of Great Britain. For example James Stewart, 4th Earl of Moray was the maternal grandfather to Archibald Campbell, 1st Duke of Argyll.

5) James V of Scotland was a son of Margaret Tudor. Margaret was also mother to Margaret Douglas. The same Margaret Douglas who was mother to Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and Charles Stuart, 1st Earl of Lennox.

6) Margaret Tudor was the eldest daughter of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York. Her siblings included Arthur, Prince of Wales, Henry VIII of England, Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Tudor (queen consort of France), Edmund Tudor, Duke of Somerset and Katherine Tudor.

Henry VIII was father of Mary I of England, Elizabeth I of England, Edward VI of England and Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset who are all known to have died childless. But Henry was also the alleged father of Catherine Carey, Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon, Thomas Stukley, John Perrot who are all known to have had children.

Mary Tudor was mother of Henry Brandon, 1st Earl of Lincoln, Lady Frances Brandon and Lady Eleanor Brandon. Most people remember Frances as the mother of Lady Jane Grey, Lady Catherine Grey and Lady Mary Grey. What they might not remember is that Catherine Grey was mother of Edward Seymour, Baron Beauchamp of Hache and grandmother of William Seymour, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Which means all later Dukes of Somerset and their various descedants claim descent from Mary Tudor.

Eleanor Brandon has also had her fair share of descedants. Her daughter Lady Margaret Clifford was mother of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. Her descedants include all Earls of Derby until 1736. The 7th Earl was maternal grandfather to John Murray, 1st Duke of Atholl and ancestor to all Dukes of Atholl to this day.

Henry VII is unlikely to run out of descedants at this point.

7) Elizabeth of York was the eldest daughter of Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville. Her most notable siblings were arguably Edward V of England, Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York and her illegitimate half-brother Arthur Plantagenet, 1st Viscount Lisle.

However often overlooked is her younger sister Catherine of York (August 14, 1479 – November 15, 1527). She was wife of William Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon, mother of Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter and grandmother of Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (1553 creation)].

Catherine was also mother to Margaret Courtenay. Margaret was the first wife of Henry Somerset, 2nd Earl of Worcester. Several modern genealogies are less than certain that his second wife Elizabeth Browne was mother to all his children. Catherine is thus considered likely to have further descedants among the Somersets

As with all English aristocrats of their day and age the firstborn male of the family would inherite the peerage and the main lands of the family. Younger sons would often receive minor titles and holdings and their descedants would be rather obscure. Daughters would marry into whatever family seemed suitable for an alliance and female-line descedants would not necessarilly claim high rank from their otherwise illustrius ancestry.

I would consider it likely Edward IV and Henry VII have had descedants of all sorts of social classes and of varying cultural backgrounds. User:Dimadick

Alright then, it's just that what I've seen for all records of American Presidents in their own time...is that they were not descended from either monarch or any future UK-type royals. Would the descent of James Stuart be a lot harder to find in commoners? There is a big difference between the Catholic English and Protestant British royal descent, or is there not? If one had the latter, they would still have connections in the peerage and present aristocracy--as opposed to the old feudal order. Am I right? I can find so many feudal royals in my genealogy, but the new mercantiles and their Renaissance or parliamentary preferences in the monarchy are totally lacking in my research. It was my assumption that in my case, this means I am low-born or of lower status as compared to the new aristocrats. Then again, Henry Tudor and all his descent were the new era of low royalty and associations--so I feel on par with them in a way. IP Address 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders Ernst August
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 00:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of France
Am I right in thinking that the extended article on Agnes of France is your work? Thank you very much, if so, for all that useful information. You won't mind if I add a detail or a footnote here and there? I have some material handy in my notes I think.

Would it be better if there were a page for each Agnes of France, with disambiguation? Andrew Dalby 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I created the article but that doesn't mean I own it. If you could add further details, please do. User:Dimadick

Noting your revision to Alys, Countess of the Vexin: the statement that Agnes of France was married to Alexius II Comnenus is becoming ever more widespread in Wikipedia, but I haven't found any Byzantine source that describes her as his wife; nor is she called Empress until 1183 (when she married Andronicus). Most historians in print describe what happened in 1180 as a betrothal, not a marriage: she was definitely too young for canonical marriage, and so was he, according to some. So, are you sure? Andrew Dalby 15:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that we don't have many clues of the life of Alexius II during his own reign either. Most Greek historians assume Andronicus married the already reigning empress to stabilize his position in the throne. The Orthodox Church does not have bethrothal ceremonies presided by priests and certainly not Archbishops. Either that ceremony was invented for that case alone or this is a marriage. User:Dimadick

Well, maybe. But was Eustathios presiding or was he just making a speech (as he did at her arrival, the previous year)? I have his speech as entitled Oration on the public celebrations of the betrothal of the two royal children but I don't have access to the Greek title right now. Andrew Dalby 15:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers
Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian and Hellenistic
We both seem to be interested in promoting accuracy in the face of the recent attempts by Greek partisans. Hopefully we can come to agreement.

You'll note that I've recently removed Category:Ancient Macedon (likewise Macedonians) from under Category:Ancient Greece (etc.), and promoted all to the same level of Category:Classical studies. I was taught that Ancient Greece ends with Alexander's conquest, and is henceforth called Hellenistic civilization.

Likewise, with Alexander's death, the warring factions certainly cannot be termed "Macedonian", as only one of the factions is actually in Macedon. And while there was later inter-marriage, after the first generation the royalty didn't call themselves Macedonian (especially since their mothers were often regionally native royalty themselves).

While it is true that Category:Ancient Rome is also "ancient", and the middle ages begin with the fall of the Roman Empire, each is merely one of the ancient empires. They don't all exist in parallel.
 * --William Allen Simpson 12:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (watching here for reply)

You equate "Ancient Greece" with Classical Greece which is pretty much what ended with Alexander the Great. The Hellenistic civilization is just another historical period of antiquity lasting from 323 BC to 30 BC. It is by no mean the end of Ancient History and you will find most Macedonians mentioned in written sources active in this period.

I find it strange that "royals did not call themselves Macedonians". The article on Diadochi makes it clear that all kept the pretense of a unified Empire until 306 BC/305 BC when the hand-full of Satraps able to rule with a sense of autonomy all declared themselves to be Basileus. Their individual articles make clear that all six of them were Macedonians by both birth and origin. Thyey were all active alongside Alexander and long after his death. How does his death rob them of their own cultural identity?

The Macedonian nature of Hellenistic civilization can not be overstated. All the major dynasties could claim descent from either the Macedonian aristocracy or the army of Alexander. At this point the original Macedon was only one among several Macedonian (ethnicity) kingdoms. The equivalent of a British Empire dissolving not to the Commonwealth of Nations but to at least 53 independant Kingdoms all claiming to be the heirs of British culture.

The Roman period is just the final era of antiquity. Not a parallel of anything but the direct successor of the Hellenistic era. The original method of dividing European history in Ancient history, Middle Ages and Renaissance had excactly this in mind. User:Dimadick


 * Quote from Dimadick above: 'I find it strange that "royals did not call themselves Macedonians"' after the first generation. I agree; I find it strange too. I would love to find a counter-example. But I haven't as yet! Andrew Dalby 16:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's correct, the "unified Empire" (despite several wars) lasted about 20 years. I've yet to see any reference where the 3rd, 4th, ... 14th generation royalty call themselves "Macedonian".  We're talking circa 200 years.  What's your source?  (Of course, folks around here don't divide history into 3 simple parts.)
 * --William Allen Simpson 09:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

blocked
I reference specific articles on Haplogroup T (mtDNA) and Haplogroup H (mtDNA) which use the well known book The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes. The same Sykes who contacted research on the remains of the Romanovs in 1991. Tasc does not state any sources on his rejection of the addittion.

I incorporate text in the articles which was created by User:Saforrest back in February and has since been inserted to any number of articles on matrilinear relatives of both Nicholas II of Russia and Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse but was glaringly missing on the articles on the two main individuals.

I have tried to adress the matter in User talk:Tasc five days ago but other than some vague comment on it being "poorly written" he has really not made clear why he/she reacts so to the mere mention of a Genetics section in the article.

Examples of articles which do include the section and Tasc has never complained about include among others: Anne de Foix.
 * Bertha von Putelendorf.
 * Elisabeth of Tirol.
 * Eleanor of Navarre.
 * Catherine de Foix.
 * Blanche I of Navarre.
 * Juana Manuel of Castile.
 * Blanca de La Cerda y Lara.
 * Eleanor of Castile (d. 1416).
 * Anna Sophie of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg.
 * Elisabeth of Austria (d. 1505).
 * Elisabeth II of Bohemia.
 * Barbara of Celje.
 * Anne, Duchess of Luxembourg.
 * Anne of Austria.
 * Margaret of Thuringia.
 * Anna of Brandenburg.
 * Ursula of Brandenburg.
 * Sophie of Pomerania.
 * Sofie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (d. 1631).
 * Anna of Saxony.
 * Elisabeth of Hesse.
 * Christina of Holstein-Gottorp.
 * Christine of Hesse-Kassel.
 * Anne of Denmark.
 * Elizabeth of Bohemia.
 * Sophia of Hanover.
 * Louise of Hesse-Kassel.
 * Princess Louise Charlotte of Denmark.
 * Princess Margarita of Baden.
 * Anna of Holstein-Gottorp.
 * Anna Maria of Ostfriesland.
 * Anna Maria of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
 * Anna Sophie of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg.
 * Magdalena Sibylle of Saxe-Weissenfels.
 * Charlotte Sophie of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.
 * Anna Sophie, Princess of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt.
 * Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
 * Christine of Saxony.
 * etc.

As far as I can see it has not diminished the worth of these articles but has made them better linked to one another. I could care less if I am personally banned but I would like to see these articles stay in good shape and not suffer in quality due to the likes of Tasc. User:Dimadick

He also has been blocked. Feel free to add in a unblock message and another admin will review the situation. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 19:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up
Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three". Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable. Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI. Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Genetics section
Stop it. Is it not enough for you to be blocked once? -- tasc talkdeeds 11:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See above on my arguments on the bloc. As far as I care you are the one who has not mentioned a single source for his/her arguments. User:Dimadick

About the genetics debate
Thanks for letting me know. Myself, despite having added the genetics information initially, I am not firmly convinced it should be there for all the nobles concerned (e.g. obscure nobles like Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin). I could see a case that inclusion of genetic data, unless sourced to an external reference, breaches the "no original research" rule.

However, it is beyond question that it must be included for Nicholas II and I've said that to Tasc. It seems sanest to me to start with the least contentious cases like the Czar and proceed outwards from there. --Saforrest 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some edits in Byzantine articles
Hi. Thanks for further improving these articles. While I understand your desire to reflect the actual article names of cross-referenced articles, please note that sometimes they have to be changed when integrated in the article text. For example, "Regent" cannot appear capitalized in the middle of a sentence unless it is a title followed by the name of the regent. I have also noticed some citations of rulers that are problematic. For example, "Emperor John III Doukas Vatatzes of the Empire of Nicaea" is redunadant and not very good English. A normal sentence would say "Emperor John III Doukas Vatatzes of Nicaea" or "the Emperor of Nicaea, John III Doukas Vatatzes", or "John III Doukas Vatatzes, the Emperor of Nicaea"... The basic formula "X of Y" is not always applicable within the sentence, especially in cases like "Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor". Piped links exist precisely to make possible the normal flow of the language. This is also true in the cases like "Michael I Komnenos Doukas of the Despotate of Epirus". Since Michael was not a despotes and a "despotate" is something of a misnomer anyway, this really ought to read "Michael I Komnenos Doukas of Epirus". I do not mean to pontificate, but please take this into consideration when editing. Thanks, Imladjov 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Duff
Hi, why do you think his title of a Earl of Fife was vacant before him ? It was a new creation for him in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, not of Scotland like the Stewart-Creation. Greetings --Phoe 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the article Earl of Fife indicates this is a new creation of the same title after 460 years rather than a competely unrelated one which happens to share the same name. User:Dimadick

Ah ... I know the problem. I translated "vacant" incorrectly. In German the word "vakant" means unsure, vague or uncertain. Sorry --Phoe 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agnes of France
I've just discovered that the new (21 May 2006) expanded version of Agnes of France (on which I had begun a little editing to damp down the wilder flights of fancy and indicate alternative interpretations, and you have also been working) is actually lifted wholesale from the signed and copyrighted page at. I wish the anonymous contributor, or cut-and-paster, had admitted this ... I will now try to revert the article to an unplagiarised state, while not losing the work we have put into it. OK? Andrew Dalby 14:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Royal genetics

 * Hi, I just noticed this genetics debate. I'm not quite sure what the reasoning is for including genetic information which seems to be likely to be the same for millions of people, with really no significant relevance for their lives? It seems so far that it just happens that royalty, being famous, happen to have been tested, but it has no other significance. Sandpiper 09:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the significance is that testing on royalty and their specific descedants happened earlier (early 1990s) and helped determine current classification in haplogroups. Plus royalty have left us with the only available geneological charts which do not end after a couple of generations and allow as to trace how a specific haplogroup spread through several royal houses across and beyond the European continent. User:Dimadick
 * Then surely that means the royalty should be mentioned under genetics, rather than that gentics should be mentioned under royalty? I fancy there could also be statistical evidence from mass sampling, but perhaps that has not happened much yet? But I would have thought that royalty would be an absolutely lousy example of how something spread since their movements and marriages are very much not the same as the majority of the population. By action of chance the spread through royal lines could be centuries ahead or behind the general population. Sandpiper 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stylistic choices
Stop adultering my work with abundance of German names. Maed 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are the current names of their articles. Your list as it stands uses many redirects and several obscure designations. User:Dimadick


 * Such names may be slightly wrong. That's one reason for why we have the possibility of piping. And redirects. The formulation of the text (including names) in one article depends on the context in that article, not what happens to be its name presently. You are possibly causing much unnecessary work for the future. Cease such useless changes. Maed 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cease creating forks
Do not make cut-and-paste moves of articles. It is against Wikipedia policy. Maed 12:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not make a cut and paste move. I created the article and then discovered an unlinked duplicate. I compared the information and found I had already included it. User:Dimadick


 * Older article remains, it is customary here. If you are unhappy with the name, go and make a proposition for its move. Do not (repeatedly) make the fork active. Maed 12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles should not be created simpåly because such person is part of some genealogy
I should request the deletion of Marie Valois. Totally unnecessary article. Do not create useless ones. Read what is notability. Maed 12:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not create it. She was one of the persons listed in your article Byzantine descent of Danish royals of Greece and I discovered we already had an article about her. The article was created by User:Iwalters on May 27 as it says in the edit history. Please check it before making accussations.

If you want the article deleted go to Articles for deletion and make a nomination. I can not delete it myself. User:Dimadick

Use English
It seems that you do not know enough of medieval rulers, languages, nor of our Use English policy here in Wikipedia. I refer now particularly to the stupidity you did at name of William, Duke of Julich etc. Please undertand that he was Low-German, and that spelling had anyway not developed to current formulations back then. Maed 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already answered you at its talk page. He is mentioned as "Wilhelm" in several other pages which you did not bother to "correct". User:Dimadick

Regarding reversions made on June 16 2006 (UTC) to Queen Anna of Hungary
Congratulations, but did you happen to notice why I did the reversions?


 * No... which is why all the below is quite beside the point. I blocked you for reverting, thats all William M. Connolley 11:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are saying the naming conventions matter nothing to you? I am not arguing about your banning me or not. I am arguing about the content of the article. User:Dimadick

I wanted to create an article about Anne of Bohemia since we already had one for her consort and several about children and son-in-laws. I checked out before hand that there was not already one linked from any of those of articles but the title article was reserved for Anne of Bohemia. So I added Jagellonian for disambiguation purposes and created Anne Jagellion of Bohemia.

After working on the article, creating links for all relative articles that came to mind and added or expanded the children lists to the articles on her children and son-in-laws I discovered his so-called Queen Anna of Hungary. It was created on June 9 but was not linked from any other Habsburg article, not categorised in any way and had a particularly obscure name. Thus practically invisible.

As for my arguments on the name.


 * Point 1: She was not an undisputed Queen consort of the Kingdom of Hungary. The throne of Hungary was in dispute between her husband Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and John Zápolya from 1526 to 1540, between Ferdinand I and John II Sigismund Zápolya from 1540 to 1564 and finally between her son Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor and John II from 1564 to 1571.
 * Point 2:Anne was daughter, sister and wife to undisputed Kings of Bohemia and was mentioned as "Anne of Bohemia" in the articles about her children for quite a long time.
 * Point 3:There is precedent of calling her "Anne of Bohemia" in geneological sites around the Internet that I am familiar with. See for example a [RootWeb's World Connect Project profile of her.
 * Point 4:His proposed article name is against Naming conventions (names and titles). I am quoting:
 * "Deceased Royal Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name or pre-marital title, not by their consort name, as without an ordinal (which they lack) it is difficult to distinguish various consorts; eg, as there have been many queen consorts called Catherine, use Catherine of Aragon not Queen Catherine." Which means Queen shouldn't even be in the title.
 * "Existing Royal Consorts are referred to by their consort name, eg. Queen Sofia of Spain. But when she dies, she will revert to her pre-marital title, ie, Sofia of Greece. As widow, some appropriate addition (usually announced by the country in question) will be amended to (such as Queen Dowager or Queen Mother), with the new Queen of Spain being referred to by the consort designation. The same rule applies to male royal consorts." Which means the article currently has the style of a LIVING Queen consort, not a deceased one. Anne died in 1547.

On the reverts themselves then. I compared the two articles and found his version to have no additional information which I could add to my own. Per Merging and moving pages
 * "There are several good reasons to merge a page":
 * "There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject." Which is all the reasons a merge needs.
 * "Merging should always leave a redirect in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Even if it seems rather pointless or obscure, leave it in place. Superfluous redirects don't harm anything, and are sometimes helpful. Other websites may have made links to the old page title, so we'll want to redirect incoming visitors to the merged page. We don't want people accidentally creating a new page under the old title, not knowing that the merged page exists. Redirects also show up in search results, helping people who might be looking under the "wrong" title to find the page that they are looking for."

I do consider his article under that name to be both pointless and obscure but since the contents were already present in my version I turned it into a redirect. Keeping in mind it was unlikely to be used much.


 * "You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That's fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add the new stuff. If there's no information to be added to the destination page, you can note in your edit summary on the source page (as you are turning it into a redirect) that there was nothing to be merged (or that the source page was entirely redundant with the destination)." Since there was nothing to be merged I only noted the redirect. The information as currently stands is partly redundant and partly contradictory in the matter of list of children. He insists however on reverting to his older version and proposing a "merge". Reverting the actual merge in the process!

I am guessing he/she has no clear understanding what a merge is. He has made his own attempt at one in the horribly-named Queen Anna of Hungary. Keeping both versions in the same article with no seeming intent to remove duplicated information! By the way I do not pretend to be a master of English literary phrasing but I think we can do better that the versing in his version. Quotting what most struck me: "They had a bunch of children"!

"Please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future". I alreadyn have both above and in the explanation of my every revert. See the history of the two articles. And I don't particurarly see Maed offering reasonable arguments either. :


 * I am quotting Maed from above: "It seems that you do not know enough of medieval rulers, languages, nor of our Use English policy here in Wikipedia." "Totally unnecessary article. Do not create useless ones."
 * Also the following seems to be his opinion on the current names of other biographic articles. "Stop adultering my work with abundance of German names." "Such names may be slightly wrong. That's one reason for why we have the possibility of piping. And redirects." Changes in the main article are not reflected in the redirect and remain invisible to Related changes feature. User:Dimadick

Your request
I looked through some of the convoluted edit history of the Anne article you referred to. Actually reverts of a redirect and a merge request. Seems a messy situation, I am not sure if I grasp all what happened. However, one of the things I have learned here is that no one should create another article about a person, but to work in the earliest article of the same. (I think that because you created the new page just yesterday, it would be not too much bother to you to take all contents you wrote, and put them to the older page - then, what's left for dissatisfaction of your opponent?). I would not want to judge any of the reverts made in the obvious revert war yesterday. Hope I do not need to. Revert warring is a bad thing. Did it improve either of the articles? Of course not. It just consumed your time, time you could have used in more constructive pursuits. If you are unhappy with a name of an older article, just open a move request. If majority of others find a better name better, it will be moved, which is the right procedure. I assume you want to make content to articles, not to revert-war upon possibly a redirect. Hope you find more pleasant issues to write about. Happy working :) Shilkanni 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See above on why excactly I can not move content to his page. The article name of his is against the current naming convention. And the earliest article is supposed to be traceable and linked from the relative articles and categories. He did not bother to enter either links or categories to it. Which again I consider invible. Event a search for "Anne of Hungary" points to no article at this moment. User:Dimadick

Agnes of France (Byzantine empress)
I mention this because I think you originally wrote this page and have been editing it. I have added to the talk page Talk:Agnes of France (Byzantine empress) a template, as you'll see if you follow the link, meaning that I'm keeping an eye on the page. (I happened to see this in use on another page I watch, and I'm wondering whether it will turn out a good idea or not.) Obviously I don't mean to claim anything exclusive, and it is (I believe) possible for other users such as you to put additional names in this template if you want to. Please feel free to comment! Andrew Dalby 14:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see anything exclusive implied by your template. By all means improve the article if you can. User:Dimadick

Eliminating redirects is not an unmitigated good
Substituting Kephalonia for Cephalonia is OK, I suppose, but literature dealing with the period seems generally to refer to Zakynthos as Zante, and "Gortyna, Arcadia" has absolutely no meaning in that period of history: the barony was referred to either as Karytaina or Skorta. Could I ask you to be somewhat more judicious when making such substitutions? Choess 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Zante is somewhat archaic and currently in use only in Karagiozis plays because Sior Dionysius proudly proclaims his origin everytime. Only when I followed the redirect did I find out this obscure "Skorta" was the famous Karytaina, one of the first communities to join the Greek War of Independence and responsible for early battles in the Peloponnese. Put it up to Greek bias. Restore your names of choice but please have them point to the main articles. User:Dimadick


 * OK, works for me. Thank you for the other cleanup and disambiguation. Best, Choess 07:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Genetics in royal articles
There is no support for the inclusion of the genetics information in any of the royal articles that you insist on adding. They have now all been removed, and please don't add them back. Astrotrain 19:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I insist of finding well-connected articles and more than the standard biographic information. Remember that I am a readers as much as a writer of articles. Your version of the articles does not offer anything particularly interesting about them. User:Dimadick

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty
Hi. There is another move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in it. Imladjov 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Creticus??
I made an edit I'm not sure about. Was Creticus that last name of these people in the Marc Antony line or not? It struck me as wrong, but then I saw the name a few other places. You seem like the expert. See Talk:Lucius_Antonius_(grandson_of_Mark_Antony). If it's a valid full name, should it be the title of the article? -- Kendrick7 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Creticus served as an addition to the name of his great-grandfather. In a similar situation the grandson of Scipio Africanus was Scipio Aemilianus Africanus and I am certain that descedants of Lucius Cornelius Sulla also addopted the name "Felix" (Lucky). However those were not names applied to all descedants. I would like to see the sources pointing to Lucius using that name. User:Dimadick

French Queens
Thank you for changing the link in the French Queen Consort succession box from List of French monarchs to List of Queens and Empresses of France: it must have been incredibly tedious, and it was very useful. Thanks! Michaelsanders 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who had added the Links to the List of French monarchs in the first place, quite some time ago. But then List of Queens and Empresses of France had not existed yet. Good work at creating it. User:Dimadick


 * I wish I could say I did; however, that was created by RandomCritic (who I have to say did a good job at it). I merely fiddled around with it when his hard work was done. Unfortunately, my only major role here has been to give you more work: I was the one who added the succession boxes for those Queens prior to Blanche of Evreux, and who created the articles for those Queens without - all of which, of course, linked to the monarch list rather than the Queen list (though that didn't exist at that time either). Michaelsanders 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen of Olga of Greece
Hi! You recently added some information to Olga Konstantinovna of Russia about the bible translation. Would you mind returning to the page and providing a reference? Thanks. DrKiernan 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

General knowledge actually. I got this summary after comparing several Greek encyclopedic articles on the event. User:Dimadick

Category:Capitals_in_Europe
Your comment here is a bit contradictory to the nomination. I am proposing the political definition of Europe over the geographic one which is inline with your comment and not your vote. Just trying to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding. -- Cat out 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am simply considering that when we say "Europe" we also consider areas of Cyprus, Russia and Turkey, if not Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia because they are considered European countries. Your renaming offers a purely geographic definition of Europe which I think is uncommon. User:Dimadick
 * No, Cyprus is a "European country" (my proposal, political borders (country is political borders)), it is not in Europe (current name, geographic). -- Cat out 12:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
Sorry about the "No-context" tag, I guess I didn't look over the article enough. See my comments on the talk pageDanski14 05:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Descent
Hi, I was wondering if you could help me because you were a big help with the article. The editor that has been helping up keeps editing out and deleting sentences. They claim before the 16th century royal families did not inbreed, meaning they did not marry their cousins. I am a little concerned this article might start an edit war because discussing it with them is not working. Could you help? Thanks! RosePlantagenet 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Constantine II of Greece
Hello, Dimadick. I've reversed you edit in the Infobox (concerning Constantine II's reign). I've put his reign as ending December 13, 1974. I've done so, to make the Infobox match the opening paragraph of the article. GoodDay 18:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WPGreece
Thank you for adding the project template in articles within the scope of the WP:Greece project. But it would be better if you added instead of. The banner's name has changed, and there is no reason to have redirects. Once again, thanks a lot for your efforts!--Yannismarou 11:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did not notice they were redirected. I just noticed the list of "Greek articles" needed several additions. I hope the articles may receive a bit more attention now.

By the way should the list include figures known for activities in Greek areas like Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin? User:Dimadick

Kingdom of Valencia
Hi. Thanks a lot for the cleaning you made in this article. I translated it and, as you have realized already by my redaction there, I am no native English speaker and the action of someone like you was much needed. It looks so much better now. I think I am going to reduce a bit the linking, though. I am not particularly fond of linking dates such as 1237. I will also change "distant" to "close" regarding the relationship between Aragonese and Castilian langauge, that's all.

Thanks again and do not hesitate to come back there often. Mountolive | Talk 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Skopelos
Thanks Dimadick for your current contributions to the Skopelos article. The page has a lot of good information but is beginning to be ungainly and probably needs structural editing. What do you think?Skopelos-Slim 08:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just starting to evolve from a near-stub to a proper article, thanks to your efforts. I don't think its realy ungainly yet but the sections on Government and settlements should be higher in the text. Currently they look too short to ne useful though. Do you know any particular work covering them in more detail? User:Dimadick

Thanks again for your input. The settlements bits have evolved from the article being a travelogue to attempts at providing more encyclopedic and neutral info, ie. they are place names and are some might be seen as important now because they might have a combination of a beach or a hotel or rooms to rent. It might be better to call them "areas". Interestingly the wikiarticle cited under Communities states that among other criteria a community must have a population 1500 or more to be considered legally a community. Neither Glossa nor Neo Klima have 1500 people. The page awaits the visit of an expert in how the government of Greece works.

The only text I know of is referenced on the page. "Skopelos -A guide to the Island" by Vassilis Tomanas 1993. This is out of print and has never been updated. I intend to add a suggested reading section for there are other books dealing with the architecture of the island and some personal history texts that I am aware of.

I'm also looking for geological info for the area if you have any ideas.Skopelos-Slim 09:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a link at the Communities and Municipalities of Greece article... http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN000205.pdf It might help. Skopelos-Slim 11:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Women writers
I just (finally) submitted the category for review for reinstatement. Fingers crossed. scribblingwoman 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WPFC banner
Thanks for adding the WPFC banner to so many articles. As you have not yet done so, I invite you to join WP:WPFC, where I am trying to start an assessment drive for the many unassessed articles that we now have (see talk).

Just one request: If an article is already tagged with the WP Prussia banner, please do not add the WPFC banner. Since WP Prussia is a child project of WPFC, it is not necessary to tag articles which are already tagged with the Prussian banner - although the same assessment rules should hold. Thanks. - 52 Pickup 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of months ago I came uppon this interesting project on former state entities but was dissappointed that many articles were omitted. So I add them in hopes of gaining some attention for them. I had not noticed WP Prussia was a sub-project until checking your recent edits and finding mention of it there. Thanks for the invitation. User:Dimadick


 * The Prussian project could effectively be a task-force of WPFC (similar to the HRE taskforce), but I use that project for testing many things that I later implement in WPFC, so I like to keep them a little bit separate. Maybe later on I will change that. It is true that there are many articles which either don't exist or are very hard to find. That's a main reason why I got WPFC up and running. Compared to many other projects, we don't have a lot of people involved so activity is pretty slow, so we need all the people we can get (and there's a helluva lota work to do). The new assessment policy that I have just started up should (hopefully) help in concentrating efforts to increase awareness of these articles and to eventually improve them. The Project pages themselves are perhaps a little out of date (i don't maintain them all that often anymore), so if you've got any ideas for how to give the project a bit more momentum, I'd love to hear them.


 * Oh, and welcome to WPFC! - 52 Pickup 12:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dimadick. Dalmatia is not an country, but a region. So, I've removed the WPFC mark. Kubura 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was listing the provinces of the Roman Empire and that was one of them. User:Dimadick


 * Perhaps I should modify the WPFC banner to make it clear that the project deals with any type of former territory, including its subdivisions. Regarding my above comments about using the WPFC banner on the Prussian pages, you can now disregard that. I have just modified the WPFC banner to handle WP Prussia articles. So where the WP Prussia article exists, it can now be replaced with the WPFC banner with the extra field |Prussia=yes . - 52 Pickup 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Celine Dion awards and accomplishments
As you've contributed to this discussion, I thought you should know that a number of similar articles have been bundled with the AfD. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Henrietta Anne Stuart
Hello Dimadick: We are having a bit of a discussion about the proper title for this article: Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans, Henrietta Anne Stuart, Henrietta Anne of England or whatever; see Talk:Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orléans. I would appreciate your input on this issue. JdH 02:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WPCYP
If it's not too much to ask, do you think you can assess the Cyprus-related articles you tag with WPCYP? Which means adding a class and importance value. It would made the entire project better off. Now I have to go back and assess those myself. User: (talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WPFC
Hi there! I noticed that you marked Southwestern Krai, Northwestern Krai, and Western Krai with the WPFC template. Neither of these entities was ever a country; they were only subdivisions. From what I understand, WPFC only covers whole countries, not subdivisions. I suggest removing the templates from these three pages, unless I'm missing something else. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The WPFC does cover subdivisions and actualy most subdivisions of the Russian Empire had already been added. We had somehow missed this three. User:Dimadick
 * In such case you might want to clarify this on the project page, as it was not immediately obvious to me when I glanced over it. Thanks for the explanation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Mickey Mouse
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mickey Mouse, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mickey Mouse seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mickey Mouse, 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. 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, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Kongo Kings
Just wanted to say good work and thanks for your addition of the succession list to the individual kings of Kongo. They've been needing a succession table for a while (among other things). Just spreadin some wikiLove. HollaScott Free 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Hey there. I have noticed that you have editted some of the articles that I was working on. I thank you for your contributions - I am much appreciative of them.

Tourskin 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your own effort in placing a spotlight on some underappreciated aspects of Byzantine history. Good work. User:Dimadick


 * Hey there. I am gonna be making some serious changes to User:Tourskin/Decline of Byzantium 1180-1204 by making it shorter. I wish to make a summary for the Byzantine Empire page since its too detailed.


 * If you wish to continue improving the content, please do so at Byzantium under the Angeloi, where a higher amount of detail is more than welcome. Thank you again. Tourskin 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 12:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WPMA

 * Hi. Did you mean to add the WPMA banner to the talkpgs of Moctezuma I‎ and Aztec warfare? Don't really see there's any connection with the Middle Ages, either in geographical or periodisation terms. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am actually adding to the project articles already included in Category:Medieval Warfare which at this point attempts to include warfare from the 5th century to the 15th century throughout the world. User:Dimadick


 * OIC, thx for explanation. That'd be a pretty wide-ranging scope to chew on, tho' I suppose that project can work out for itself whether or not their bounds will extend that far. Thx, --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosel
Thanks for the quick merge! I hate doing merges, so I greatly appreciate someone doing them. Thanks again! Ealdgyth | Talk 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate doing merges between articles covering the same subject but with very different tones and material. Somethink always has to go. On the other hand mergers of stubs rarely pose trouble. Dimadick 07:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Adelheid of Brunswick
A tag has been placed on Adelheid of Brunswick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jons63 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Adelheid of Brunswick
A tag has been placed on Adelheid of Brunswick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jons63 (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Settlements by year of establishment
Hi - I notice that you've been creating pages in the Category:Settlements by year of establishment category set. Please have a look at Category_talk:Settlements_by_year_of_establishment and feel free to propose changes to the agreed cut off dates there. You might also want to look at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_15 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_3. As you will see, it is my view that creating pages such as Category:Settlements established in 744 leads to cats containing only one or two articles on average and lots of gaps for those years when history has not recorded that any settlements were established. It's my intention to take the categories that fall outside the current agreed cut-off dates to WP:CFD. Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I did create them, while searching for articles appropriate for WikiProject Middle Ages. The upmergings with "establishments" had left a mess in the parent categories. You could hardly distinguish which dealt with settlements and which with monasteries or even states.

I also noticed the criterion "Prior to 1500, where greater dating accuracy exists, articles should also be placed in the appropriate Establishments by year category." So I only did for articles reporting the year or ,better yet, the date of foundation.

As for number of articles included per category, take a look on some post-1500 categories. "Category:Settlements established in 1600" contains only one article. "Category:Settlements established in 1604" two of them. Should they also be deleted for being scarcely populated? What exactly makes 8th century categories invalid and 17th centuries valid ones when they contain the same number of articles? Dimadick (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates
So let's remove that qualifier. I do not see the purpose of having a non-inclusive list, as it implies this sort of "third tier" candidacy is not valid or that it does not need to be included in an encyclopedic accounting, neither of which is true. • Freechild   'sup?   15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability
I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

 * Adminship Thanks for the thought (I know it was also kind of tongue in cheek referring to the number that had to be patrolled) but of course I was suggested for adminship well over a year and a half ago and I turned it down although I could use some of the admin tools certainly. I've put in ten times more edits that many admins on here, but I prefer to contribute purely encyclopedically and not get too tied down with debates and administrative which often makes me feel bad about wikipedia when some people are uncivil etc, I'm sure you know what I mean! i find it silly that nobody will flag my account given my contributions -it would save new page patrol a lot of work!!   ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       ? 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Your Talk Page
Would you like me to archive your talk page?-- T r U C o 9 31 1 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can, do it. I am not sure of the needed process. Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. T r U C o 9 31 1 20:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Greece
You have added the WikiProject Greece template to talk pages for (1) articles about non-Greek entities that have Greek-derived names and (2) articles that mention or discuss the Greek language derivation of certain English words, but that otherwise appear to have nothing to do with Greece. Do you have reason to think that Fear of youth, Ephebophilia, Orpheion, and Omophagia belong in this wikiproject, or were these automated edits? (There may be other examples like these...) --Orlady (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have added articles that were already in Category:Ancient Greece or disambiguation pages included within. The category and its contents are relevant to thw WikiProject which also covers the Greek language. Dimadick (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On that basis, I see the value of keeping Orpheion and Omophagia in that wikiproject. Fear of youth and Ephebophilia probably got included due to a link from a page related to the root word Ephebos. I see no reason for Wikiproject Greece to need (or want) to fool with these articles, so I removed the Wikiproject templates. --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Electoral histories
Hi there, I see that you have been editing many of the same pages that User:Darth Kalwejt has. I have a question regarding your views on "Electoral history" sections on politicans pages, information that Darth Kalwejt has added to just about every American politician Wikipedia article. Do you support them, and do you support their formats (there are many different formats, but do you support any?)? I suppose they could be beneficial in certain instances, but I am largely opposed to how they are currently being used and presented (see my comments here). Anyway, I'm just curious as to what you think; a reply would be very helpful. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much for them. They seem to be mostly duplicating information from other articles. I am just correcting misspelling of names. Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for your reply. I've been trying to contact Dath Kalwejt but he hasn't responded. Thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force
Hi Dimadick, I notice you've been adding a lot of WPMA templates; I've just created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, so if you'd like to help with that as well, that would be great! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been adding the templates for quite a while now because it seems to be the only way to get the articles noticed. I df the new task force can get some Crusade articles noted, why not. Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Floris III, Count of Holland
Noticed you added a WikiProject Middle Ages project banner in the article talk. But in the other projects, the article has been rated start class. But you did not assess it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Medieval Wikiproject has its own assesment criteria and does not necessarily follow the bio assesments. Dimadick (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Toni Ann Gisondi
You voted to keep this article based in part on an award win. Just wanted to make it clear that the article was poorly worded and the actor was merely nominated for the award, in case this makes a difference to your vote. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

tags
You might add the $$visual arts}} tag to those articles like illuminated manuscripts where it applies and has not yet been added. We don't do much tagging, although we are more active in maintaining these articles. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that project also covered manuscripts. Dimadick (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:Blacasset
A tag has been placed on Talk:Blacasset, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hot200245 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Manuscripts
I'm fairly sure it is a mistake to all Project Judaism tags to Christian Old Testament manuscripts that have no textual interest for Jews. However, as mentioned before, the Visual arts tag is an appropriate addition. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have added mEdieval but bot Judaism tags to the various manuscriptsDimadick (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking about Old Testament fragment (Naples, Biblioteca Vittorio Emanuele III, 1 B 18), but I see you are right - you added WPMA, someone else the Judaism. Both in fact are wrong, as this is a late Antique 5th century MS, as are several others you have added the WPMA tag to.  Please use edit summaries btw. Just "+WPMA" would be fine. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is the only project so far which has dealt with the Roman and Byzantine articles of the 5th century. So I don't consider it a mistake. Dimadick (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How "dealt with" (other than by tagging)? Some of these have the "classical Greece and Rome" banners, and the main contributor to them by far is User:Dmsgold who is not affiliated with either project, probably followed by myself, who is in both. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with in assessing and/or preventing vandalism mostly. For some reason "Classical Greece and Rome" has not included several articles on Roman figures of the period of the Theodosian dynasty or their successors in the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. The situation dealing with the 476 - 500 period is not that clear. Dimadick (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Succession boxes
Hello. According to this succession boxes should be about the last thing on the page. I am not a great fan of consistency for its own sake, but in this case I think it would be as well if everything was done the same way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

However this renders them practically invisible in articles with long list of references. I consider them more useful at the end of the actual text. Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen Zein
Hello, Dimadick! Could you please give your opinion at Talk:Queen Zein al-Sharaf Talal? Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Byzantine Emperors
The tables in this article repeat the row which include Picture, Name, Status etc. parameters as headings in both top and at the bottom of each table. Can you please fix it?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 32)
Hallo, Dimadick! I'm hoping you can help me. The page on G. Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 32) gives his date of birth as 11th December 17 BC. But where did this date come from? No source is given. I don't know who wrote the original page, but I notice that you've taken an active part in the discussion, so maybe you could advise me. Thanks, Larmel (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The date seems to come from "Suetonius' Life of Nero:An Historical Commentary" (1978) by Keith R. Bradley. Dimadick (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Estonian Government in Exile
Hi Dimadick, I noticed that you included Estonian Government in Exile under WikiProject Former Countries. It might be me that I'm missing something but how does it make sense? Thanks! --Termer (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing that the project even has a task force devoted "to articles on extraordinary governments, such as provisional governments or governments-in-exile". Dimadick (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yajnavaraha
Gross oversight on my part on the AD/BC mess! Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

About Constantine
Recently you have added king Constantine I of Greece in the category of Greek people of World I... I do not thing should be there, since he wasn't Greek. Yes he was born in Athens but his line is not Greek (Glücksburg). I will remove him from the category for now... If you disagree please post your opinion in the talk page of Constantine I of Greece. Thank you in advance. A.Cython (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this, i'am spanish wikipedian and Latins should be like it:Latini and es:Latinos (es:Latinos was translated from it:Latini), Shooke (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject tagging
You've just tagged Diameter, Dolphin and Dissertation as being part of Wikiproject Greece, despite the fact that these have nothing whatsoever to do with Greece. Please stop inappropriately categorising articles like this. Hut 8.5 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

They are included in category Greek loan words and the Project also covers the Greek language. Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a sufficiently strong connection to tag the article's talk page. Only do it if the article has a strong connection to the Wikiproject. Hut 8.5 17:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Theodora Kantakouzene
A tag has been placed on Theodora Kantakouzene requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for what was probably an incorrect speedy deletion. To avoid such problems in the future (though I'll be a bit more careful), read Starting_an_article. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 10:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

About your Wikiproject tagging again
I came here because I had concerns about your Wikiproject tagging, although apparently User:Hut 8.5's already dropped a similar note, but I do want to add my voice to his/hers. I've seen you popping up across the spectrum of my watchlist for some time now, and while I admire your dedication and diligence, I have to say that I think your tagging is indiscriminately broad, which greatly reduces its helpfulness to the projects involved. Adding everything with any kind of relation to classicism, no matter how remote or in what minor proportion, is not what those tags are for. When you find yourself tagging things like World's Finest Team as being supported by WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and WikiProject Mythology, you have ventured into a categorical inclusiveness that compromises the value of those tags in the first place. I urge you to exercise a greater selectiveness, particularly in cases of modern fictional characters that are related to or in some way based on classical myth. Namorita shouldn't be tagged for Wikiproject Greece any more than Lex Luthor should be tagged for WikiProject United States presidents because he won an election in a comic book. Thanks. Ford MF (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem under the impression that "classicist" means ancient. Much of the project articles actually include modern authors, artists and cultural depictions. In concepts as broad as depictions of Greco-Roman mythology there is little difference between sources and depictions. Did you even notice that "Namorita" is another depiction of the Atlantis myth? Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I mostly came because of the wholesale tagging of comics- and TV-mythology articles with templates for WP:GREECE, &c., so yeah, I'm aware there exists in the Marvel Universe a thing called "Atlantis". I'm willing to believe that these Wikiprojects may in fact be agreeable to the inclusion of derivative characters and works, legion though they may be, but your tagging does I think raise a legitimate question of scope.  You didn't mention a rationale for World's Finest Team, although I presume it is the mere presence of Wonder Woman, and it makes one wonder how far down the ladder you're going to go, because that's pretty far down.


 * Mythological articles habitually accrue "trivia" or "in popular culture" sections that list myriad mentions of the subject in modern popular culture, but would manga like Spriggan (to pick one example) really need to be tagged for classical mythology merely because its characters use weapons of orichalcum? Ford MF (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I am willing to believe I am in the minority in this regard, so I've posted a similar question on the talkpages of interested projects regarding their scope. Ford MF (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to ask you to please stop the excessive project tagging. Every character of the Xena television series and every article in Xena does NOT belong in any of those projects. You seem to just be tagging without actually considering the article contents. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I echo the concerns of others. Stop tagging anything with a Greek or Roman name. Not everything tangentially connected to either empire needs be tagged that way, unless you also plan to tag all articles on democracy, republicanism, science, and so on. they've all got latin and greek name roots. ThuranX (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with ThuraX and Collectonian. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Superheroes
Hey, this is Blackwatch21 from WikiProject Superheroes. I see that you have been putting our project banner, if you want you can join our project. Thanks. BW21.-- B lack W atch 21  16:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to superhero articles I am more often a reader than an editor. But having some fresh eyes examining articles that have not seen many edits in more than a year is probably a good idea. Wish you luck with your new WikiProject. Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But you added our project banner to over 200 articles?-- B lack W atch 21  16:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Olympics Games
I noticed you answering some questions on the talk page here; are you knowledgeable about the games? And if so, can you tell me if this is accurate; if so it could lead to significant expansion of the article. Ironhold<b style="color:#000">s</b> 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the page is its lack of a list of its own sources and use of expressions such as "some scholars" which leaves the reasoning quite vague. I suggest finding more sources supporting a statement before incorporating it into an article. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks :). <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Junta trials
Hi Dimadick. It's been a long time but it is nice to see you again and I would like to thank you for your support and your valuable contributions, as always, to the article. Take care. Tasos. Dr.K. (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Always nice to see interesting subjects covered in new articles. Good work, Tasos. Hope you can find enough time to work on your subjects of choice. Dimadick (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Dimadick for your nice comments. I always try to write a few things that I care about and I am very pleased to get feedback from editors I hold in high esteem. I also appreciate your many contributions and great work in this area and even though it is the nature of editing here that sometimes we lose track of each other, it is always nice to see you again. Take care and all the best. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

Western Roman Empress consort
You have created this table in articles and so....

Placidia is not last Western Roman Empress consort but wife of Julius Nepos which is married to niece of Leo I. Procopius is even writing about Julius Nepos grandchild, but for me name of his wife is mistery !?--Rečanin (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a mystery for everyone. The name was never recorded to my knowledge and there is too little information about her. Whether she was a niece by Leo by blood or marriage is also unknown. Also unclear whether she was alive during the reign of her husband. Dimadick (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Onomatology of Byzantine Emperors
Hi Dimadick. I saw your efforts to revert the changes that Deipnosophista made to the Komnenos article. Thank you for that. I informed Yannismarou and Adam Bishop about the situation and requested a reversal of these unjustified, stealthy, misleading and counterproductive moves. If this is not resolved soon we must take further action. Please let me know about any ideas you may have. Thanks. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Yannis, as usual, fixed it. I just left him a message about the others too. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes
You had participated back in February in this CfD regarding the Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes, which ended in no consensus. A new proposal has been made to eliminate this category and merge its contents to Category:War documentaries which is now going on at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 24. You are encouraged to reconsider the original CfD, revisit your opinion in that discussion and participate again in this latest CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you be good enough to take another look at the discussion? I hope you'll reconsider your !vote for merging in light of the comments I've added. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian and Lord S are AfD'ing an article from DBZ again
They didn't even notify the talk page where consensus was just reached, this really is reprehensible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tien_Shinhan#Tien_Shinhan

Ratings
Please stop rating for the Visual Arts Project, of which you are not a member. I don't think you should rate for other projects where you are not a member & have no specific expertise either. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am only applying recent ratings of one relevant Wikiproject to the others. I consider it bettyer than leaving them unrated for a lengthier period.Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally the VA view is that no ratings are better than Biography project drive-bys, so please don't. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to ignore the biography project myself. I have encountered states and artifacts wrongly included in that project and given ratings. I meant the projects by country, more recently the German one who has been quite active in assessments. Dimadick (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjectNotice-LSBY
Please can you be more careful when adding WikiProject notices to articles. Firstly, is no longer in use, and is only retained because some pages have not yet been converted to the newer tag, which is  . Secondly, most of the articles you have added this tag to are not in the scope of WP:TLS - of the twelve articles you have tagged today, the only one which should have been tagged was 1973 in spaceflight. The more generic WPSpace tag (without the TLS=yes parameter) should have been used in all other cases. Thanks. --<font color="#115566">GW_SimulationsUser Page 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Crime and poverty
Crime and poverty are indeed rated as major factors for mortality. I'm not sure if you were being serious or not on the CFD, but I found your comment slightly off the mark. Viriditas (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Julius Yemans Dewey
Thanks for expanding the article! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I was working on expanding the George Dewey article recently and found some good references on his father. I think Julius was quite an interesting figure on his own right. I hope you find the article to your liking. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Greece)
Thank you very much for your contributions to Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Greece). As you can see is still under construction, I do have all the information, just need time to punch it in. Typically I do the wikilinking job at the end (after copy edit), but you have helped a lot.

If you do not mind, I can post you a note here when I add more information about the other coins.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have finished adding all descriptions to the article. I am adding references now while a friend is doing the copy/edit.  IF you have time and want to help, please feel free to wikilink the rest of the article.  Many thanks in advance, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Settlements established in 744
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Settlements established in 744, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Settlements established in 744 has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Settlements established in 744, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

List of First Ladies of the United States
Please do not add Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. List of First Ladies of the United States goes by what the White House and First Ladies Library says, that is all. If you would like to bring up why it doesn't include sisters, neices, daughters, you may wish to discuss it at Featured list candidates/List of First Ladies of the United States. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Khitan articles by importance
I notice that this category is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to (are members of) it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Criteria for speedy deletion. I'm notifying you, the creator of the category, in case you wish to (re-)populate the category by adding to articles/categories that belong there.

I have also blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

--Stepheng3 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Same thing with Category:1764 riots. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Rulers by century
I finished my expansion of the category you created. Any suggestions on how to improve the category? Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the first thing you can do is do to go here and vote to have Category:21st-century former rulers merged into Category:21st-century national presidents.
 * Now looking at your work... this is awesome... I am not sure where to start, I see from your recent contributions you have added a lot of monarchs, mostly from Asia, mostly from the 11th to 18th century? Maybe you can tell me what else you have done so far.
 * I will tell you some as well.
 * I filled basicly by myself from about Category:7th-century BC rulers to Category:10th-century rulers. I forget where I left off on the BC side as you get records for fewer rulers each century, but basicly have 100% of the rulers up to the 10th-century. The category were then getting so big I knew I should begin breaking them up by area (I plan on Asia, Caribbean, South America, Oceania, Europe, Central America, North America, Africa, Middle East) from then on, and by type (monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) from about the 18th-century onward.
 * I wanted to have a sytem so that I planned in advance the category and could not have retag each article many times. I guess I spent most of the time since then (doing other projects and) dividing all the Heads of state by area. I know someone who has a bot that can divid up the names by century, and then all we would have to do is go down lists of articles and tag them.
 * Have you ever, by chance, used a bot?
 * In any case I have the them done already for the 21st century rulers here: User:Carlaude/Rulers.
 * I also have lists ready of rulers that could be recategorized by area here: User:Carlaude/Rulers. It is not really as high a priority but it would be nice to do especially if it could be done by bot. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 22:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, one of the simplist things you can do to "improve Category:21st-century national presidents" is go Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_16 and vote to have Category:21st-century former rulers merged into Category:21st-century national presidents.
 * You can post a vote in just one sentence... Did you already add them all in already? I saw a lot were at one point. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Monarchs by century
I am not so sure that Category:10th-century monarchs, etc. are that useful as subcategories. Since most rulers in these centuries are monarchs-- until republics begin (again) in the 18th century-- nearly all the rulers would have to in these categories for them to be complete, and the rulers that are not monarchs would sometimes be hard to determine, since we may have very limited records of back then, and many titles are used of monarchs and non-monarchs. The cut-off doesn't have to be the 17th-century if there are some non-monarchs before then, but I was not sure you thought about this. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I never indicated they are were only monarchs, but there looks to be stilll at least 90%-95% monarchs-- and then someone could come along later and just propose in a CfD that it all be merged/deleted, each [Category:00th-century monarchs] into its parent [Category:00th-century rulers].


 * If you still want to include a [Category:Monarchs] within each [Category:Rulers] then I would still like to have us working together. Could we leave the non-monarchs together in the top category until a 18th-century or so? Having some ruler-types in small categories will greatly increase the chances that later someone will nominate all the categories to be all merged. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 11:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Dimadick (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your new Category:9th-century monarchs does show up with the first page of Category:9th-century rulers because Category:9th-century rulers has nearly 400 articles in it. This can be helped it articles are moved out of Category:9th-century rulers and into subcategories like Category:9th-century rulers in Asia or Category:9th-century monarchs in Asia, rather than just adding them to Category:9th-century monarchs.
 * You could also just add a blank before the sort key like this... User talk:Carlaude}} 22:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

21st-century national presidents

 * I see you are doing thing with these categories but I don't understand why you avoid much of any communication. Do not want to do any working together?
 * The main thing I notice is you have added a couple hundred articles to Category:21st-century national presidents and/or Category:20th-century national presidents-- which is a good thing-- but the point of my efforts to indentify them by area, e.g. Europe, is that they can be entered directly into Category:21st-century national presidents in Europe or whatever. To enter them all into Category:21st-century national presidents and then later into Category:21st-century national presidents in Europe takes twice as many the edits. What do you think? User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I placed the various 21st century presidents there because there was not a subacategory for them. I think I included everyone with an article. If you create subcategories, I can help with the edits needed to disambiguate them. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank for responding. I have created all the 21st century president sub-cats for ya.
 * Also still curous what else you have worked on that I just haven't seen yet? User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created various more such as 9th- to 14th-century monarchs in the Middle East, in Asia, and Chinese monarchs and the various more 20th century president sub-cats.
 * Just let me know where you will work and I can create categories for you, or at least sample ones. I don't want to create categories until one of us is planning to use or fill them soon after.User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 22:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to work on Indian rulers for a while. Already covered the presidents and the Emperors from 1877 to 1947. Dimadick (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Looks like the categories you need are there. A couple points.
 * Please avoid putting a person in a "monarchs is Asia" etc. if they live in Europe-- in a non-conntected way, e.g. any of the UK monarchs over India. I think there may seen as Overcategorization and reverted or an excuse to even toremove the categories all togther, as they are new. (these people would end up being monarchs "in" of every continent-- but I think still having leaders of Russia and Turkey rulers as rulers "in Asia" will make more sense to people.)
 * Also, it is not as usefull to have So-and-so's folder in these categories as to have So-and-so's article. In fact, if leave the people categories out, altogther that is prefered to me, but do include people articles.
 * There are a few categories of people here and there in the 1st- 12th-centuries that are each within a whole century-- these are good. (In fact in these cases I have not even put the people within in that century category, but you can if you want.) But there are a few categories in the 19th and 20th centuries that overlap centuries. I will try and remove them all tonight, but we do need to remove them, so they are not confused with the ones that can stay. We will also have to get rid of the caliph categories later, since they all overlap. It may be nice to set up "caliphs by century" categories. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arsinoe IV of Egypt
Hi there. I see you have made an amendment to the article Arsinoe IV of Egypt, categorising her as a "female ruler". Arsinoe IV was undoubtedly female, but was she ever a ruler of anything at all? Wdford (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

She was rival queen in a civil war. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

She wasn't much of a rival, as history proved. She went off in a sulk, she attempted a coup without much support from anybody, and her own army sold her to the enemy. She never won the war, and never came to rule Egypt, or anywhere else. History remembers Cleopatra as the last ruler of Egypt, after her father. Does that really make Arsinoe a "ruler", or merely a spectacularly unsuccessful "wannabe"? Wdford (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised to know hom many Roman emperors have no more claim to the title than she did. Dimadick (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If they never ruled, then they were never rulers. Let's delete them all as well. Wdford (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:14th-century BC women
I have nominated 14th-century bc women for renaming to women from the 14th century bce. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Byzantium articles
I'm trying my best to gradually build up the Byzantine Empire history series of articles, and your help after my writing is greatly appreciated. I intended to wikilink the prefectures when I started on the article again, but you've already done that for me! Thanks for your assistance, and for adding those project tags. Monsieur dl  mon talk 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Marcellus (6th century AD)
Hello Dimadick! I have responded on Marcellus' identity at Talk:Marcellus (6th century AD), and await your reply. Best regards, Constantine  ✍  18:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So it does need a disambiguation page. If you want to edit the Bury phrases. Do so freely. It is just the most detailed account of the events I have found. Dimadick (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is, and good old Bury was virtually the first serious work on Byzantium I ever read :) However if we include links to the text itself, IMO including entire passages is a bit redundant. We should summarize, like all encyclopedias. Anyhow, good work on these new articles, I am looking forward to more! Take care, Constantine  ✍  18:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marcellus (6th century AD)


The article Marcellus (6th century AD) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * per Talk:Marcellus (comes excubitorum), implausible & misleading redirect. There were several Marcelluses in the 6th century, and the proper dab page for them is at Marcellus

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Constantine  ✍  11:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Germanus
Hello! I have seen the German article, but they seem to mix up the Caesar, who acc. to the PLRE is only recorded once, for 582, with Germanus "the Patrician" of the later reign of Maurice. The PLRE however makes a clear case that the two are distinct. Other than that, the German article uses only the info from the PLRE entry. If you do not have access to it, I have a copy and can write the article up tomorrow. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  14:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this does resolve why I could not find more references to the Caesar. I have information on his role in 582 but nothing before or after that. Dimadick (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Page for Byzantine-related new articles
Hello! I have created a list for new or recently de-stubbed articles that relate to the Byzantine Empire. I hope that everyone contributing on the subject will add his/her articles there, so that other interested users will be able to find it easily. BTW, I have tried to find all such articles for 2010, but some may have escaped my notice. If you find any missing, please add them yourself. Best regards, Constantine  ✍  13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Domentziolus, the nephew
Ecxellent work on expanding and adding context to the article :)! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The Prosopography typically offers the bare bones of any event mentioned. Its the context that gives them significance. Dimadick (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman people by century
Hi! You are welcome. I hope I don't make mistakes. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:CatPair
Try using this template as shown here next time. Thanks. User talk:Carlaude 16:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Slav migrations
hI. The whole article needS re-writing with more recent theories. It Would need to be hugely magnified to go into the whoe debate whether 'homalands' exist or not, and where this is tO be found, and analyze the various cultural, political and demographic factors which led to a Slavic expansion. The old theory that Slavs just suddenly migrated accross half of Europe is simplistic Hxseek (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish–Portuguese War (1509)‎
Hi Dimadick, could you please check the discussion about a possible merge with the battle of Diu? Regards --Kimdime (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for all the copy editing on Isabella of France. Greatly appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Romans and Visigoths
As regards this edit, should I put him in the "Romans" category even if he was a Visigoth? --TakenakaN (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He served in the Roman army. If we exclude all Roman officers of barbarian or semi-barbarian origin, we end up without listing the majority of them in the 5th century. Problematic on itself. Dimadick (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yennenga
Hello. I see that you're currently tagging a number of articles as being part of the LGBT wikiproject. Why would Yennenga fall under that scope? There's nothing relevant to LGBT in the article.-- Beloved Freak  13:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

LBGT stands for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender". Yennenga and other cross-dressers fit under the definition for transgender: "individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from the usual gender roles.". Dimadick (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise what LGBT stands for, but I don't think that Yennenga would be classified as transgender just because she wore men's clothing as a disguise to escape her father. These categories and/or project tags can be controversial, and it's sometimes a good idea to discuss them first. I've not checked on all the other ones you've added, but please be aware of WP:BLP issues too, if you're adding the tag to BLPs. These "accusations" (and, yes: some people do see it that way) need to be scrupulously sourced. -- Beloved Freak  13:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, so I guess it looks like you don't really want to discuss this. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Not that I think I'm right and you're wrong, but I would like some more input.-- Beloved Freak  13:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd Century Consuls
Dimadick, you have me at a loss. Why did you undo my corrected edit for the Roman consuls of the year 169 AD? As someone who appears to have significant knowledge of Roman naming convention, you are surely aware that the consuls for that year was several individual, not one massive block of a name? I am going to undo your edit, and remind you that names like Lucius, Aper, Gaius and sextus are praenomen not cognomen or nomen. Thank you. --I am the Blood 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT Stuff
Hi Dimadick! I'm here to learn and hopefully you can send me in the right direction. I noticed that you changed the DEFAULTSORT on Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury. Therefore, I'm thinking that you know a bit more about formatting them than I do. I was told that the order goes, SURNAME, (PREFIX) GIVEN NAME, SUFFIX, but then you changed it to place the suffix first. I keep seeing it so many different ways and it gets confusing. Can you direct me to the official formatting guidelines for the DEFAULTSORT? Try as I might, I've never been able to find it. Your help is appreciated. Thanks and have a great day! Cindamuse (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Banner shell
Hi Dimadick. I see you've been adding WikiProject Boxes to talk pages. I would like to ask you to add {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=no|1= around all the boxes when there are more than a few. This keeps those talk pages from becoming too cluttered. --JorisvS (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WPGR tags
Hello Dimadick! Good work on tagging, but two requests. Please be a bit more careful with the WPGR tag, you've added it to quite a few irrelevant articles recently. Also, it would be good, since you already add the tags, to assess the articles as well and add the relevant parameters too. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  02:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the main reasons I tag articles is to have editors with an interest on them actually viewing them. It would kind of beat the purpose if only I reviewed them and forgot about them. Dimadick (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. However the tags are mostly for project maintenance, and reviewing them does not preclude any interested editor from reading them, either ;). As for the Judaeo-Italian languages, you are right, there is relevance. I've reverted the removal. However in many other cases, such as the Dené-Caucasian languages etc, I can't really see any connection. Best regards, Constantine  ✍  10:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WPMA
Intriguing - I had always in my exposure to academic interpretations of history - I had always assumed Middle Ages was a euro-centric allocation - relative to the cultural sphere of Europe - do you have any good links that say they identify the label to un-related cultures (in that Java was hardly affected by the european influence till after)  at all? SatuSuro 06:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed the article History of Asia and its section "Middle Ages". What makes you think you thin the Project is eurocentric? Dimadick (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - I have nothing to do with WPMA project - however if I look at the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Middle_Ages - it is very specific about its context.

South east asia is very different from the over-sided Asia category and its issues (of which I disagree very strongly as a grab bag for widely disparate cultural spheres) and would defend questioning of all your WP MA tags on Javanese items as being close to nuisance tagging - sorry to say - as the article from which I cite specifically is related to europe.

As for any attempt to draw in all four quarters of asia in any one article is IMHO intellectually arrogant anyways - they are all disparate, anthropologically, linguistically and historically - wikipedia has a very large fault in allowing the asia category and all its disparate elements being put together in one bag. SatuSuro 06:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet, the Project has specific teams working on the History of Western Asia and North Africa. It is only East Asia that seems currently overlooked. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)|

That does not make Borobudur and Prambanan medieval monuments (which are not in East Asia but very specifically South East Asia- maritime at that) - sorry - they are not european - and I would stongly suggest you shore up a better justification for the tagging than that - as I see no reason to leave those tags there - in all WP:AGF - please either go and re-write the main medieval history article lead sentence and see what a response you get from other editors over that one - or please leaves Javanese monuments alone - thanks - or giver very very good reasons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia  to defend your case SatuSuro 07:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * there are already many dubious project tags being spammed on every article, editors should take care to ensure that when they do spam project tags they are only doing into articles that are clearly with the scope of the project in particuar I'll draw your attention to the definition of Middle ages project This is a WikiProject on the Middle Ages, for those Wikipedians interested in that middle age of European history that definition clearly excludes areas of the current day Indonesia and most other areas of asia except for some portions of the middle east where empires//crusades etc occurred. I suggest that you undo your erronous tagging rather than leaving it for others to clean up. Gnangarra 07:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how it is "erroneous tagging" but my edits have already been reverted. Dimadick (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Germany
I see that you re-added the WikiProject Europe banner to Talk:Germany, although the banner had previously been removed, and you do not refer to any discusssion on the matter. Please note that Germany is not within the scope of WikiProject Europe, which explicitly restricts itself to those articles not covered by a more specific project: "The Project does not take responsibility for areas of Europe already covered by a project. For example, where a European country is covered by a national project [my emphasis] or a regional project (e.g. WP:EEUROPE, WP:MICROSTATE, etc.). The project shall also not cover articles involving the European Union, Eurovision or European History." Boson (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to your reply on my talk page:
 * No, I had not noticed that someone had added the project banner to some other European countries that have their own projects. Possibly that was done by someone who is not a member of the project. I see that France was also added very recently. Like most project members, I imagine, I did not have non-project countries on my watchlist. I noticed Germany because I am also a member of WP:GER. The Europe project explicitly excludes such countries from the project. It was set up explicitly to cover those countries that did not have their own project and those pan-European topics that were not covered by the European Union project. I think it would be best if consensus were reached on the project talk page before changes are made to the scope of the project. --Boson (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pages to merge
Hi

It may not be efficient for pages to be created with single ssentences. They are not really worthy of even a stub classification. I came across some of your pages on Sumerian religion and would suggest you merge them. If not then I will begin to stick merge tags on and even do some of it myself if the articles are not expanded soon.

Many of those little stubs can be quite easily included on the main pages of the religion and do not warrant a page of their own. A simple list would have been better.

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Heraclius the Elder
Congrats on expanding this really important article! Very comprehensive and in-depth work. I do think however that the section on the Armenian revolt should be condensed and sourced, if possible, from somewhere else. The verbatim block of text, with its toherwise unmentioned Armenian names and the peculiar style, really stands out to the eye and is rather incomprehensible as it lacks any context. Do you know some other, secondary source that discusses Heraclius' actions there in detail? Constantine  ✍  00:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If I did, I would use them. Unfortunately the Armenian events are mostly overlooked. Dimadick (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Double barnstar
I find it really odd that you have not been awarded one yet for your fantastic and tireless work here, so there it goes:

With best regards, :) Constantine  ✍  02:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nominated the two brothers for DYK. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  07:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Why are you putting cryptid templates in (talk) pages about mythological animals? As far as I know, "cryptid" is not synonymous with "mythological animal"--Mr Fink (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then it would be a good question why the project covers article such as genie and werewolf. Dimadick (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about genie, but, people do claim to see werewolves, like the situation of the "Beast of Bray Road"--Mr Fink (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do movies belong in Wikiproject American Old West?
I noticed that you'd like The Gambler (TV movie series) (among other movies) to be part of WikiProject American Old West. I do not think it fails under the scope of that project. This is a fictional portrayal of the Old West and it has nothing to do with the real American Old West. Nothing in the Wikiproject's description suggests fictional accounts of the Old West fail under the scope of that project. The wording there indicates otherwise, in fact. I see that many movies have been tagged as part of this project. If indeed, fictional accounts of the Old West fall under the scope of that project, it ought to be explicitly stated on the project page. This would first require discussion. I'm strongly of the opinion that it makes no logical sense to include movies under that project. Having a Wikiproject American Western Films or some sub-project of Wikiproject Films would be much more sensible. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion on the project talk page. Please do not add any more films to this wikiproject until some resolution is made. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed American Old West articles is backlogged
From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Old West:

"...There are over six hundred (articles) in the backlog..."

I've noticed that you've been doing a lot of project tagging lately, without leaving an assessment. I must now ask that you assess all American Old West articles that you tagged, with the exception of the Western books, Western movies, and Western TV shows. We're still discussing whether to include those or not. If you need help, just let me know and I'd be happy to help you. Utah raptor My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 13:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Lekapenos
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Constantine Lekapenos
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Category:Conflicts in 2000" (and the annoying "Conflict in" spamming just everywhere)
How was this a "conflict"? Some kind of conflict in which only one side is armed, and the second one is not putting any kind of resistance? The REAL conflict here was the Second Chechen War anyway, everything there was just part of this conflict. And stop posting category "Conflict" EVERYWHERE. And even a a battle or whatever is NOT an armed conflict. "ARMED CONFLICT" IS JUST ANOTHER NAME FOR "WAR". That's all. --212.91.5.20 (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

American Old West movies, books, and comics
Could you please stop tagging the movies, books, and comics made after 1900 with the WikiProject American Old West tag? See this discussion for more details. The Utahraptor Talk to me/Contributions 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit for Theodora (11th century)
Hi Dimadick,

Apologies for the Theodora (11th century) edit, that was my mistake, I thought I had removed the Alexios I succession table from my workspace, but I must have overlooked it. Thanks for picking it up! Oatley2112 (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England
I would appreciate your opinion about the proper name of (Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England, see Talk:Princess Henrietta of England JdH (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject East Asia
Hello, and thank you for tagging almost 200 articles for WikiProject East Asia. While many of these tags are good, I have removed several of them. Please do not be upset, your contribution has been exceedingly valuable, and I don't want to step on your toes. The reason I removed some of the tags is because the project has self identified as a mid level scope project, which means that its aim is to cover regional issues, events, entities, etc. and historical entites. As a general guideline, for contemporary issues, events, entities etc. if more than one country within East Asia is involved, it is within our scope. If only one country is involved, or multiple countries are involved and only one of them is within East Asia, it is not. By this logic, 1950s in Hong Kong does not fall within our scope, while Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong does.

For more information, or if you would like to voice a concern over our scope, please feel free to visit the project page. While you're there, consider signing up as well. We could use you!

Sincerely, Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  22:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read our scope document
Please, I implore you, read our scope document. It's on the project page, and specifics are on the talk page (WP:WikiProject East Asia.) Most of the things you have tagged since my last message are not within the project scope. WWII battles not between two East Asia countries are not covered. India, Guam, and the Philippines are not covered. US-Japan relations are not covered. This project does not cover everything in East Asia, it's scope is much more specific. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please try to understand where this is coming from. If you want to comment on our scope, please do, but please abide by the scope in your tagging until consensus is reached.

Thank you, Sven Manguard <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm Wha?
Hi there. A you have a new message alert popped up and I saw the linked difference. I'm not sure what exactly happened there. If you wanted to leave a message, please feel free to do so.

As for the above, I wanted to first apologize if my messages above seemed harsh. I realize that you were offering help, and should have been nicer. Second of all, I wanted to thank you for those 300 or so tags. A lot of them were exceedingly useful and boosted the project a great deal. It seems that you have a knack for finding pages.

So, well, we didn't get off to the best of starts, but I am sorry if you feel mistreated. Feel free to contact me, and feel free to join the project. Cheers, Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  05:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

More overzealous/inappropriate tagging
As other editors have already asked, please could you take the time to read the comments posted on the WP:EASIA Talk page. Indiscriminately slapping project tags on the talk page of every single article related to East Asian countries is not especially constructive, as, as far as I can see, articles on cities or regions in Japan or other East Asian countries do not appear to be within the scope of WikiProject East Asia. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Added links for Rust and Hippler
Thanks for adding the links for these individuals! I'm a new user and hadn't gotten around to figuring that out just yet, so it'll be a good model for me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ...the point is to change it (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary reminder
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.Valfontis (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Help on Dacian categories
Thanks for the help! Here is an invitation to the project too. Best regards!

<div style="border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color: #f8eaba; width: 80%; margin: 4px auto; padding: .2em;"> Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I see you are already pretty involved with articles relating to the project and adding project banners. If you wish you join, you can add your name in the list of members. Regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

With the ever expanding Wikipedia, I feel the basic need for any Wikiproject is locating articles of interest. Which is why I am typically adding project banners. I am afraid I am not knowledgeable enough in Dacian matters, lacking sources. I am just glad that a Wikiproject pays attention to an area of Europe that is often overlooked. Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * People on the project came with different interests and backgrounds. We have some interested only in project structure and not in the articles. I myself focus more on the project infrastructure, categorization, assessment than the articles themselves, at least at this point. We need more than article content help so your involvement so far is more than necessary to make you a member. Thanks for the kind words and help.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

'Dacian' archaeological cultures
Just thought I'd leave a note to explain why I reverted a series of your recent edits. You added WikiProject Dacia to a few article talk pages: Talk:Linear Pottery culture, Talk:Boian culture, Talk:Gumelniţa-Karanovo culture, Talk:Usatovo culture, Talk:Cernavodă culture. But in each case the archaeological culture that is the subject of the article dates to several millennia before the Dacians existed - therefore they really had no connection to the Dacians and aren't in the scope of that WikiProject. I also removed WP Dacia from Talk:Stari Ras, since that's a Medieval city that again has no connection to the Iron Age and classical era tribe known as the Dacians. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 09:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi guys! Just wanted to pitch in from WikiProject Dacia. We clarified the scope of the project here: WikiProject_Dacia/Goals. Indeed those cultures do not fit the time span described in the scope, even though they fit the space. But I just wanted to clarify that not only Dacians as a people are in the scope of this project, as described at the link provided. Projects like History, European History, Archaeology, Romania would be more appropriate. Not sure if there are projects about Prehistory and cultures. I hope this helps and I welcome your comments. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Notes Codrin.B (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Cluj-Napoca
One observation: I don't know if you should set the assessment and the importance of an article to be the same for all projects. The importance of an article definitely varies for each project, while the quality assessment varies (usually not that much though). Each project has their own process of assessment and designation of importance and members of each project will assess the articles individually and separate from other projects. As in our example, I would think History of Cluj-Napoca should be of high importance to Romania, mid to Dacia, low-to-mid to European history, low to History. But I would let members from those projects determine that. Let me know your thoughts.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ideally this would be so. But many articles are left unasessed for years, so a single assessment is better than nothing. Take for example Wikiproject Romania. 1626 unasessed articles, most of them left like that for over a month. Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, there is a lot a of work needed to assess everything. Maybe is better to assess quality for all and let them put the importance? Or just assign the most sensible or logical importance. But I think you should consider joining some of these projects, even if you help only with assessment and categorization. You are doing the tasks that members usually (should) do after all. Cheers! --Codrin.B (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

La Tène culture
Take a look at La Tène culture. I've been trying to add a few relevant projects there and there is a guy who insists on stopping me. See the conversation on the talk page. I can see some of his points but I think is better to have more relevant project than less, since it stirs collaboration. I know you are very judicious about categorizing and adding WikiProjects. What do you think? Thanks and regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I was preoccupied with the creation of another article and a template. I had attempted to add a further Wikiproject to the La Tène culture in August 2010, at least from what I can see in the talk page's history. It is the Wikiproject of the United Kingdom since the article specifically mentions: "La Tène cultural material appeared over a large area, including parts of Ireland and Great Britain (the lake dwellings at Glastonbury, England, are an example of La Tène culture". May addition was removed by Johnbod, citing "Let's just have wp Switzerland; this could be under 15 or so country projects otherwise". Which doesn't really sound much of a reason to me. The wide scope of this article should ideally help list archaeological sites in each of these countries. But I would like to avoid edit warring about it. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ablabius (assassin)
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime categories
Hello. You seem to be putting people into crime categories. People may be criminals, but they are not crimes. For example, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a 1968 crime. James Earl Ray, the man who killed King, is not a 1968 crime. Please consider this before you add people to crime categories. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop. I don't want to make a big deal of this, but people do not belong in crime categories. People may be criminals but they are not crimes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Angilas
Hi. I'm 's missus - he asked me to have a look at the page. Could I ask that next time you are tempted to turn a redirect into an article about something that's not related to where it's redirecting, you ask an admin to clear the decks first. Takes two minutes, saves considerable fannying about later :). I've got to sort it, you'll see some weird edits for the next few minutes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that the redirect was only used in a single article, right? Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite aware. I'm also aware that the history of the article prior to redirect was stuck at the bottom of your article, and needed to be elsewhere, and the talkpage contained references to the original article and the reason for redirecting it.  The correct thing to have done was to have moved Angilas to Angilas (Film monster) (or some similar name), to free up Angilas for your article.  That preserves the history and the talkpage content, and would have saved me 20 minutes of fannying about to fix it (see WP:HISTSPLIT).  Still, it's fixed now, so no worries. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Phasis
Hello Dimadick! A most impressive article, especially for a first-time effort. Well done! Only one observation on citing. Please cite each individual fact/sentence/paragraph with the page where you found it, not the entire page range that concerns the whole article. It is both more professional and helps anyone who wants to check up facts. BTW, have you nominated it for DYK? There's lots of absurd misunderstandings there that might pique the interest. And thanks for the heads up on WPDacia, I didn't know the Goths had been included in its scope. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not nomitated ir for DYK. I was under the impression it rarely deals with Medieval articles. About the citation, it might look more professional. But I try to avoid representing five pages from the same source as five different sources in the reference pages. Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Anastasius (Samaria)
Hello! I tried to qualify Anastasius' role with what was most appropriate in relation to his involvement in religious matters, but you may be right that neither Byzantine clergy nor Byzantine theologian apply, at least as far as we know. The best way to describe him is probably just as holder of a political office, and Magistri officiorum is good enough for that. I'll remove this category. Place Clichy (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anatolius (Osroene)
Orlady (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled
I noticed that you added a tag to the article Yohannes III of Ethiopia connecting it to WikiProject Women's History. I'm puzzled at your action: how is he relevant to Women's History? I could see how his wife, the Empress Menen Liben Amede, would be -- I've been unable to find enough information to write more than a perfunctory stub about her, which I don't want to do -- but IFAICS Yohannes as the person himself provides no insight to the subject. Unless weak figureheads notable mostly for their religious devotion can be said to be relevant to Women's History. -- llywrch (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That "minor edit" check box
You might consider using it when adding a template to hundreds of talk pages. I don't appreciate having my watchlist fill up with dozens of (+51) edits by you that I can't filter out. john k (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Phasis
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anatolius (curator)
Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 557 Constantinople earthquake
Materialscientist (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely--I wonder how THAT was omitted
I see that you added a needed category for Josephine Baker shortly after my editing-unrelated proposal (thereby perhaps making it editing related). That's of pretty high importance to me, so you also help reinforce that fact for me. Thanks.Julzes (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Internet in Turkey - Turkish page?
Marhaba,

I saw you created "Internet in Turkey" If there is a Turkish page for "Internet in Turkey" could you link from the English page?

Saygilar

Jzlcdh (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not create the article, only its talkpage. I am not sure if there is a counterpart in other Wikipedias. Dimadick (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth College, Guernsey
Hi, I was wondering why you added Elizabeth College, Guernsey to WikiProject_Women's_History. Elizabeth College is a (mainly) all boys school. Having been there, I'm not really clear that it would have any relevance to Women's History! Mrh30 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The monarch would be listed as 'founder' of lots of institutions around the time. There's a question of notability - it is a notable fact for the school that Elizabeth I was listed as the founder (or more precisely, it was founded on her orders). The fact that she founded Elizabeth College wouldn't be classed as notable for Elizabeth. Mrh30 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wife of Julius Nepos


A tag has been placed on Wife of Julius Nepos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

there is just nothing here to write about

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagging again
I see you have been very active tagging for the Women's history project however I wonder if most of the articles tagged are just about a women. I wonder how you are discerning what counts was "women's history". Anne Michaels, Jackie Collins, Enid Blyton and ‎Anne Stevenson ‎are women writers but I don't really see how they clearly fit under this project more than most articles about women. Are you involved with any consultation with others on the project concerning the choice of articles? Please advise. Thank you. Span (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Women who have either made significant contributions in politics, arts. and literature or gotten significant coverage for other reasons. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that not every article on Wikipedia with a woman as its subject? There would not be an article unless she was notable. It does seem that every woman is being tagged. I suggest this would undermine the category and the project. Span (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really. Up till now, the project is merely locating articles of interest and has yet to substantially improve particular articles. Dimadick (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I came here to discuss this very thing with you. I don't see how women such as Julie Brown, Lisa Kudrow, or Kelly Gallagher (alpine skier) have a direct relation with women's history.  They are women and notable but they aren't notable for having influenced the history of women as a whole.  Dismas |(talk) 09:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point I am looking for negative stereotypes of women in the media. Brown and Kudrow are both listed in association with such roles. Kelly Galagher seems to be important for Northern Ireland.

There are no women who have influenced the history of women as a whole. There are no men who have such influence either. At most they have influenced the course of history on their country or region. Not on a planetary scale. It would be setting the bar for inclusion too high. Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've asked for commentary by more members of this particular wikiproject here. Dismas |(talk) 09:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is current discussion pertaining to this at the Women's History project page here. Would you mind not templating BLPs until a consensus has been reached? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You've been asked politely now to join the discussion at the WikiProject and stop tagging BLPs. Please do so. Otherwise, I will take your disruptive behavior to WP:AN/I. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I see on the Project's discussion page, the conversation is about inclusion of males and works about males. Which is what I have responded to. Dimadick (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WT:WikiProject Women's History, especially the recently added subsection, Discussion to reach consensus. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please respect the wishes of other Women's History project members, as well as other editors participating in the discussion linked above, and stop placing the Women's History banner until we resolve issues of scope. Every editor who's expressed an opinion wants you to stop. If you find articles that you're sure other project members would find appropriate, please take time to assess the article when placing the banner, and place all the articles you banner on your own watchlist. Otherwise, you're only creating work for other project members that we don't want. We need to establish the credibility of the project. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Women's history project
Hi Dimadick, several editors have expressed concern that you're adding this tag to so many (arguably unrelated) articles that it's effectively becoming meaningless. Could I ask you please to stop adding that tag completely for now, and join the discussion here instead? Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * H again, I meant please stop adding the tag or adding any assessments, until the other editors on the project agree with what you're doing. Jessica Simpson, for example, could not reasonably be described as of mid-importance to women's history. Please don't add the tag or assess any other articles until the issues are resolved. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You count consensus and expect me to remain silent? I am still discussing notability with other editors. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's consensus that you were adding the tag inappropriately. It's difficult, for example, to see the relevance of Olivia Newton-John to women's history (no disrespect intended), so it appeared that you were adding the tag to all pages about women. As a result, people asked you to stop adding either the tag or the assessments. There's now a workshop set up to decide the scope of the project, so perhaps you could take part in that and abide by whatever decision is made there. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is still ongoing. Particularly since fiction related-articles were added by another user. Dimadick (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of War over Water for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War over Water 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 its deletion discussion page 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussions
I would like to bring to your attention that in discussions on talk pages your tone often comes across as argumentative or defensive. While I know it was posted over a week ago, your response on the Women's History Scope page regarding the miscellaneous topics, was addressed directly to me, rather than contributing to the overal question posed. Quite frankly there was no need given the format of the page for you to offer an insult. Furthermore the accusation made was clearly out of line as I had directly linked the article in question, not copied it from someone else's comments. I wholeheartedly stand by my position that the article in question has nothing to do with women's history, although its role in fashion is clearly pertinent. The remainder of your comment was to call into question other editors (who I have not checked history to determine) who had tagged articles you did not agree with. In all you did not answer the question, only offered insult to myself and other editors. I post this in hope that you become aware that these behaviors are viewed less than favorably by other editors, and that you take a moment to step back and realize the majority of editors are not talking directly to you, but rather in a general sense. Our overall goal is to improve the encyclopedia. Your opinions and contributions are valued, and it would be appreciated if you would show other editors the courtesy and consideration they show you. Thank you. --Tbennert (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject templates
Hi Dimadick, WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America is a daughter project of WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. There's no need to place WP:IPA templates on every article that already has a WP:IPNA template. WP:IPNA is fairly active, so indigenous subjects in Canada and the United States get comparatively much more attention than articles pertaining to indigenous peoples of the Americas outside of these two countries, which could benefit from tagging and updating categories. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * For the most part WP:INPA and WP:IPA articles don't have WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups templates. I was thinking of bringing the subject up at WP:IPA discussion and will do so. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

BTW, do you have any interest in assessing articles? WP:IPNA has almost 2K unassessed articles here: Category:Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Dominique Papety
Hi! I see you added the women's history template to the talk page of Dominique Papety. I've left it, since I know nothing about him, but wondered if you added it by mistake. Dsp13 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Stephen & Constantine Lekapenos
Hello Dimadick! I've nominated Stephen Lekapenos and Constantine Lekapenos for GA, but there is the question whether the two articles should be merged, since most of the text is common to both and since the two brothers acted in tandem. As the original creator, what do you think? Cheers, Constantine  ✍  08:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They were individuals and co-emperors. I don't see people like Gordian I and Gordian II merged even when much of the the text in their article is in common. Why should Stephen and Constantine be singled out? Dimadick (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, Gordian I and Gordian II have considerably different texts, as their careers are different. Stephen and Constantine are virtually a pair, and their lives are known almost only from from their elevation as co-emperors to their downfall and exile, and during this period their careers are identical. Merging them is not "singling them out", there are plenty of articles on brother-sister pairs (cf. Sibling groups) in Wikipedia. Constantine   ✍  11:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Women's History Project Again
Hi Dimadick, I see that today you spent a lot of time tagging pages under the Women's History project. I'm wondering (again) if this is with the full of consenus of the team over there as last time editors spent a great deal of time untagging articles that hadn't been discussed. I'm not sure, for example why a List of Milanese consorts would come under the project and the character Nancy Drew is certainly a puzzle. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Project agreed to not include articles concerning women active following the year 1950. Medieval articles and lists are included. Literary works with impact are still included. Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagging of John Carver (Mayflower Pilgrim)
You cannot rate this article low in importance. John Carver was the first governor of Plymouth Colony. He is was the first name on the Mayflower Compact. He came over on the Mayflower. He was highly respected and gave much of his fortune to bring his friends to the New World. As another important Plymouth governor William Bradford said of Carver, he worked himself to death that spring and his and the other lives cannot be valued at any price.

He is important in MANY respects to American History, if you know anything about American History or read any of the references.

Whatever your personal opinion is of the article in any other respect, Carver is definitely NOT low in historical importance. If I am misreading this rating scale, please let me know.Mugginsx (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He was already rated of low importance by Wikiproject United States and Wikiproject Massachusetts. I added the same rating to Wikiproject Calvinism because I don't see any mention of him being a particularly significant religious figure. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, well that scale is hard to read. Thanks for the explanation. Mugginsx (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiberius II Constantine's dates
Hi Dimadick. Yikes! Apologies for that, and thanks for picking that up. Going back through my draft, I can see how it happened... Is there such a thing as "Old Age Dyslexia"? ;) I re-read it at least five times and didn't even see the dates! Thanks again. Oatley2112 (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Project assessments
You're current - and valuable - project assessments are not putting any explanation in the edit summary. Maile66 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC

Co-operative Block Building
Hey there. I noticed you recently rated Co-operative Block Building as stub-class for two projects. How come it's stub-class and not start-class? It's not a very long article, but it covers its subject fairly well, has a number of reliable sources, and follows most general start-class guidelines. Chevsapher (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You can re-evaluate them yourself. But the sources are not really third-party or peer-reviewed. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-evaluation. Unfortunately, it's next to impossible to find ANY non-Crawford sources for the article, short of the NRHP nomination form. It's just one of many old business buildings in small towns throughout the Midwest, and sources are far and few between. There are VERY few people who even know the structure's proper name.

I'm seeing more of your evaluating on my watchlist. Keep up the good work! Chevsapher (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Dimadick (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Duncan II of Scotland
You did a good job in expanding and citing the article Duncan II of Scotland, I have been through the citations that you added and there are a couple of small matters that were not clear to me. Please see Talk:Duncan II of Scotland -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

An alteration to the template:MLCC
Please see the article Sir Charles Seely, 2nd Baronet. That includes two sources which are unreliable. The first if Rayment -- who does not cite its sources. The second is Lundy. Lundy by himself is not a reliable source. But he cites reliable sources so by including the source which he cites (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), the citation becomes reliable and in the longer run those sources can be checked and the Lundy part of the citation removed. If you look at Lundy's faq he warns that some entries are from another data-base which have no sources and he has not checked them, he also says in point 6 "Where two sources disagree as to dates or places, I have shown both items as different events." which means that he is not hiding anything and his methodologies are similar to the best practices on Wikipedia. Also by including his citations in a Wikiepdia citation, if his website goes (as many such sites do) then the information can still be checked against the source which he cited.

To date I have looked at several score articles that include a Cawley citations and not one cites his sources as recommended in WP:CITE. Also because he does not always use fixed links to the tags inside the articles (some of them seem to change when he updates the page), many of the citations to his pages suffer from link rot, this is not helped when the name given in the "title=" field of the citation is not the same as he used in his text (It makes finding the information on the page time consuming and difficult).

I have however considered what you wrote and I have altered the template MLCC so that it takes a warning flag instead of defaulting to warnings. I have also edited the article Andronikos Komnenos (son of John II Komnenos) to include the main citations that Cawley cites in his text -- so there is no need for the warning flag. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts of this. -- PBS (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets see an example here of what citing every source Cawley actually uses in a profile to the corresponding article. In the profile of Malcolm III, just to firmly establish his paternity, Cawley cites:


 * Marianus Scotus
 * Florence of Worcester
 * The Annales Dunelmenses
 * The Annals of Tigernach


 * I usually try to have the citation link directly to the external link. Incorporating all references to primary sources in the text of the article. Such as "this relationship is reported by Marianus Scotus, Florence of Worcester, etc. Lets say we incorparate all this in a reference called "Cawley1". The next reference in the same profile uses another source, a secondary reference to "The Kingship of the Scots" by Duncan, to analyze the nickname Canmore. And the cited possibility that it was actually the nickname of Malcolm IV. Lets say we incorporate this as "Cawley 2" and again point to Duncan.


 * After a relatively brief mention of Malcolm's career, not his primary area of interest, Cawley focuses on his death in battle. Citing two primary sources: Florence of Worcester and William of Malmesbury. Lets say we incorporate them as "Cawley 3".


 * Cawley next offers citations for the original marriage of Malcolm III, citing the Orkneyinga Saga. Then focusing on its lack of confirmation by other contemporary sources, as well as several possible interpretations on the subject. Which aren't really unique, but he summarizes the arguments themselves, not authors. We can site the information as Cawley 4.


 * He next offers a sub-profile on Margaret, second wife of Malcolm. Which incorporates four primary sources and a secondary one. Lets say "Cawley 5".


 * I get the notion that the process fills the article with somewhat redundant citations, instead of actually increasing reliability. --Dimadick (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a policy on what is and is not reliable sources (WP:SOURCES). Ideally what is needed is to replace Cawley with a reliable secondary source. In which case if the information is summed up by that source then there is no need to include primary sources, but as Cawley is not a reliable source, but the sources he cites are, then WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is pertinent. Looking at quite a few of the articles for which Cawley is cited as the major source, the notability of the article is open to question. For example although Andronikos Komnenos (son of John II Komnenos) warrants a sentence in the John II Komnenos article, but what is notable enough in his biography to warrant an article about Andronikos Komnenos (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)? It may be in the future that some something changes and genealogical information otherwise of no historical note becomes notable (eg Barack Obama's mother 'probably the descendant of a black slave' (30 Jul 2012)) but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until it does, then there is no need to record it -- although if someone has gone to the bother of creating such an article I personally would not AdD it.


 * Using the example (Malcolm III of Scotland) that you give:
 * "After a relatively brief mention of Malcolm's career, not his primary area of interest, Cawley focuses on his death in battle" there's the rub, Wikipedia's primary interest is in his notability ie his career. There are reliable sources that note his death so there is no need to use Cawley. If there were not then WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT would apply, and where he cites a reliable secondary source, hopefully an editor will in the future go and check it and then Cawley can be removed -- In this article A.A.M Duncan (2002) is cited directly, so Cawley does not need to be cited for his Duncan information.
 * "Which aren't really unique, but he summarizes the arguments themselves, not authors. We can site the information as Cawley 4." No because it is original research/opinion by a non expert/reliable source.


 * We can debate this between ourselves, but I think that if you wish to continue then it will be more constructive to do so at WP:RSN as others may have additional insights and opinions that we can consider. -- PBS (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ballade des Dames du Temps Jadis
Hi,

I just wanted to say, great edits on Ballade des Dames du Temps Jadis! I must admit I didn't even know about Aelis. I guess that shows once again the power of Wikipedia and collaborative editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Arelatensis (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Class of Geography of the Falkland Islands.
Hi Dimadick,

Thank you for looking at the article Geography of the Falkland Islands. I am s littel surprised that you classed is as a "Start" level article. I am aware that other editors classed it as a "start"-level artcile, but when that classification was done (July 2012) the artcile had 15 references and occupied 10 kbytes. Since then it has increased to 35 kbytes and has 45 references.

The criteria for start and C class articles are are follows:
 * Start: An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
 * C-Class: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

With reference to the above, I would be obliged if you woudl let me know which of the criteria you applied in doing your classification? Martinvl (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in standardizing the US presidential election articles
Hello, I noticed you edited the intro of all US presidential election articles before 1900 to match the ones from 1900 onward ("was the XXth quadrennial election, held Tuesday, November X, XXXX" etc.). Thank you for the help! This past week I have been editing the articles to standardize them to the elections from 2000 onward (which needed some cleaning and tweaking themselves) and doing some general cleanup in the intros. The articles were all over the place and shouldn't start with some detail in the first sentence. I not only standardized the intro two sentences, but rearranged any paragraph or statements and standardized links as well to match whatever flows the best and is proper (as in, the candidates should be mentioned before any global events going on during the election). I managed to get down to 1900 a few days ago, and was going to start finishing the rest today, but then I saw that all the articles already had the intro in place. I still need to do some of the minor cleaning up for each one but at least you already have done the main edit needed in the meantime. Cheers :) 134.139.212.193 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem there. I thought you were doing a good job and thought to help finish it. Keep up the good work. --Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Imperial Russian categories
A user involved in the discussion on the Imperial Russian categories has been emptying people out of them out of process, which has the potential to disrupt the whole discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Augustan Age (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) 12:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI on discussion about Template:United States topics
Hi! Your recent edits to Template:United States topics have led to concern about template size. You may wish to comment at Template talk:United States topics. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of the template US history & US topics
Hello. I appreciate you added it in good faith, but I have to disagree with you adding US history to all sorts of articles. This template is just too broad to be directly relevant to most of these articles. For example, do we really need this template at the end of Korean War, or the US Topics template? Is Korean War -> Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion a sensible link? I think not. The most important template, by far, is "Korean War," with "Cold War" also reasonable. If any history template is appropriate, it'd be a "History of Korea" template, and even that is a bad idea since the link between the Korean War and say ancient wars with Japan 900 years earlier is shaky at best. This is especially seen if someone considered adding a "History of China" or "History of Russia" or "United Nations" template to the article; all were relevant players in the Korean War, but none of them deserves a link. This is true for almost all the links you added - I would use these templates very carefully in overview articles on US History only, not just "any historical event involving the United States."

I suppose the point is - would you mind reverting your additions? Or me reverting them? I don't want to get into a revert war, so if you'd rather talk first or have a unified discussion somewhere else with others, that would also be fine. SnowFire (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, I would mind. My problem with the template as it stood is that it had too few articles and offered a poor overview of a wide topic. And I don't see why multinational events like the Korean War should only have the template of a single country. Dimadick (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Because of template bloat. Once two templates have been added to a page, the first template - often a specific template linked to extra-relevant topics - will be auto-collapsed to save space.  Once 6 templates have been added, like at Korean War, most readers will probably not bother expanding ANY of them!  It's just like bluelinks, one high quality link is better than linking every word in a sentence.  And from what you say on the Korean War, by all rights you should also be adding History of China, United Nations, etc. as well, which is well on the path to making the pile of templates useless.


 * The point is that a single RELEVANT template works. For the 13th amendment, my test case which you reverted me on, the relevant parts of US History are already linked in the article - the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments, the 14th, etc.  The rest of the US Constitution topics are sensible links.  The ENTIRE SCOPE OF US HISTORY, including utterly random things separated by 100 years like second-wave feminism, are not appropriate.  I strongly feel that this template should not be expanded nor added to every article vaguely related to US History. SnowFire (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you given thought to say, building an Index of United States history-related topics or Book:United States history or Portal:United States history instead of excessive template expansion? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is already a Wikiproject about United States history, but not a particularly active one. Dimadick (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mean a wikiproject, I mean a page where all your links can exist (such as the index book or list articles) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Free Territory of Trieste
This is all but "fiction"; many things have surfaced on this matter in the recent years

— the Osimo treaty is a bilateral treaty which can not overwrite the peace treaty (as shown by the UN note, see source on page) — the issues can be opened anytime at the UN security council, as declared by the UN themselves in 1983 (post-Osimo) — the Territory is only under ITA/SLO/CRO administration, and NOT sovereignty. There is, in fact, no treaty saying ANYTHING about sovereignty changes. And you should know the difference between adm. and sov... it's huge. — dozens of proceedings in the Italian-run court of Trieste are completely stuck as citizens started appealing to an Italian lack of jurisdiction. — many triestine citizens are actively demanding for the peace treaty to be fully applied, as the provisional cold-war conditions Trieste's still in are still causing problems http://www.youtube.com/embed/c93JDQFlOyw?rel=0

So, the Territory has never become a "former country", it is still a sovereign entity. Unapplied? In most parts (not all, though), but surely still existing, and an open topic at the UN security council. And no-one has been able to prove otherwise, at any level.

The fact that in Wikipedia there are LOTS of italian nationalists who would constantly neglect this, doesn't change the bare facts — I'd hope the English wikipedia could be clear on this matter, without falling into the "stronger faction" trap. Triestines have always been barely represented on Wiki, as there are very few "full" articles on this land — and there's a reason for that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarska (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Can be opened" but has not been opened. The United Nations have taken no act on the matter since the 1950s. Unapplied sovereignity and nothing indicating recognition of a sovereign entity in the area. And the reason that Trieste is under-represented in Wikipedia is probably the same for the poor condition of other Italian and Balkan articles. Insufficient decent sources and/or interested users. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You say "nothing indicating recognition of a sovereign entity in the area", check this out (fully valid, obviously, and unchanged by any other treaties): Art. 21.2 — see for yourself! http://cronologia.leonardo.it/document/doc0104.htm No other document has changed this sovereignty status; meaning that it is a sovereign territory with two (now three) administrators (see: memorandum of understanding of 1954). Unapplied, in many (but definitely not all!) parts, yet untouched, as confirmed by the UN themselves in 1983 (important to say, after the Osimo bilateral treaty!). There's also the XVI resolution of the UN security council, which can be only overwritten by another resolution. It never happened so far. To this, I shall add many details, such ask the status of our free port, formally recognized even by Italy the fact that Italy won't ask for payment for motorway in the FTT, the italian prefect also having the role of "government commissioner for Trieste", and so on.. Anyone who've studied this in depth (and - sad to say - is not part of the academic establishment) will agree: the FTT formally still exists, albeit administered by other nations. Aarska (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

p.s: just to give you an idea of how UNPRECISE everything about trieste is on wikipedia, even the flag and coat of arms are actually... wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Images_to_improve/Archive/Oct_2007#Free_SVGs_for_a_Free_Territory.21 (i'd need some support on changing these with the right ones which I prepared a while ago for another project.. could you help with this? I've never uploaded/updated pictures on wiki) Aarska (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am also unfamiliar with the process of uploading. Perhaps you should raise accuracy concerns in the Talk pages of interested projects. Recently a number of "symbols" of defunct states were removed and replaced when users raised similar concerns. Dimadick (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added comments to the relevant discussions/to the previous discussion page of 2007, yet no reply :( how I can spark a discussion/update of these images, I really don't know... Aarska (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Category pairs
Sorry, but these history of art ones are much too simplistic & misleading. Better not to have any, but rely on the parent cats. Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

They follow the pattern suggested by Art of Europe. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually they didn't, but when you can see the whole table of contents that's a rather different thing anyway. Article sections have to go in somwe order - categories don't. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Maths
Just a heads up - the mathematics project does not tag categories with maths rating, so please don't add it to additional categories. The template should only ever be in the Talk namespace. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also noticed your tagging a lot of mathematical categories with . A lot of those seem to be outside scope of the project, which is only semi-active. The mathematics project does not need to tag categories as it has its own mechanisms to keeping track of articles so it might be best just to leave them untagged.--Salix (talk): 14:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think the mathematical project does a poor job of keeping track of articles, since several relevant articles are untagged and haven't had many edits in years. The Systems Project has a wider scope because, by its nature, it covers Dynamical systems theory and areas involving multiple scientific disciplines. "Untagged" is equivalent to "invisible" for several categories which could use more attention. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We have maybe an unconventional approach to article tagging, only really doing it if there is a need for tagging such as identifying which articles most need improvement. Just tagging articles which are in the project duplicates the work done by the bot which compiles WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (0–9) etc, 25,000 articles in all. The system is good for identifying important changes at WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. With this system we don't feel a great need to tag every single article and an untagged article is not seen as a problem.--Salix (talk): 18:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:USRepMA‎‎
Great job fixing USRepMA‎‎! —GoldRingChip 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to use it for easy navigation, when I discovered that several names were missing. Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Category: Robot characters in video games
Thanks for commenting on the category name change proposal. I hope you understand that it just seems illogical to have a category called "Robot characters in video games" and then exclude robot characters who appeared in video games from being listed. I just changed the proposal to simply change it to "Category:Video game robots", which I think would solve the problem, since the emphasis would become "video game" characters who are "robots"...Mathewignash (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Pratt family
I noticed your comment on the CfD on Category:Pratt family. You have howerver ignored that we have an article Pratt family that is on a different family. We also have Category:Pratt-Romney family. The current category seems ambiguous under its present name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555940712 your edit] to David Storey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557388875 your edit] to Roman Frederick Starzl may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Frederick Starzl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Factor (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) 12:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=560261123 your edit] to Women in Bosnia and Herzegovina may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * radic In post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina, women are a driving force for change], IFAD, namely: the "transition from war to peace", economic transition and political transition. The

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=560568362 your edit] to Andy Mangels may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * *Excelsior: Forged in Fire December, 2007. Featuring Hikaru Sulu.

WP:ORDER
Hello. Please note that that 'Navigation templates' (such as the 'Poets Laureate of the United Kingdom' template) should be placed above the 'Authority control template'. Please consider modifying your latest edits. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your user page
Hello, I found your user page while doing some wikiarchaeology. . I have restored all of its earliest surviving revisions from old copies of the Wikipedia database, so they are available to everyone now. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 11:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Antimatter
I noted that you had tagged talk:Antimatter with a WikiProject Skepticism banner. I wondered why. I thought that Antimatter was supported by known Physics and therefore would not be subjected to the close scrutiny given (say) dowsing. Indeed, it is on the Wikiproject Physics list. Student7 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It happens to also be the subject of several fringe theories. Cloning is also very real, but the inaccurate claims about it are numerous. Dimadick (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lady Charlotte Elliot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kinnaird (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) 10:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice to meet you
Hello Dimadick, My name is Jacob Mason J.Mason 11:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I am happy if we can be friends, If you want

I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies.

I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that?

This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.)

1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page?

2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist?

3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages?

3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time?

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content?

5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page?

6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page?

7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of connection, community and collaboration?

8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered?

Many thanks for taking the time to read this!

TheoryofSexuality (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

My edits on the Shakespeare page were based on a simple reason. I was adding pages to categories involving 16th and 17th century dramatists and poets. I found him being among the most notable ommissions. Though I have made minor edits to other Shakespeare-related pages, I am far from an expert on the subject. Personally, I have enjoyed reading the historical plays of the author but I have not activelly added to the pages about them. Dimadick (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent visit to the Hans Kelsen page
Greeting from the Hans Kelsen page

Thank you for your recent contribution to this page. As you may have noted the page has started its path to improvement from being a stub. Could you possibly glance at the page and indicate the TOP five (5) things which are needed on this wikipage to get the page its first promotion to a slightly higher page review status. This would help for me to try to set up a thirty day plan or a forty day plan to try to accomplish. Once again, thank you for your recent contribution to this page!209.3.238.61 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(1)Names of parents, and family background. Was his family upper class, middle class, working class, etc. (2) He was the main drafter of a constitution. What kind of ideas did the document reflect? (3) The controversy which cost Kelsen his position at the Constitutional Court should probably get an explanation. (4) Did the Nazi Party dismiss him from his college office due to his Jewish origin or because of his ideology? Were his previous publications banned? (5) He is mentioned to have worked on international law in the 1940s. Any notable examples? Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This is really a nice list. Some of these items will need more time and some a little less. Hopefully by the end of the month they'll get addressed. Do you think, if all five are done, this would be enough for the page re-eval? Once again, thank you for your recent contribution! 209.3.238.61 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, any page can be re-evaluated at any time. A few more references could probably get the article ranked at C or B. Dimadick (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yours comments were really well presented. It has taken about thirty or forty dedicated edits to get them put into the page, and now it seems all of your suggested edits are in there. Could you check if its there in the way you wanted to see it, or if another top 5 list would help the Kelsen page get its first upgrade! Again, with appreciation. 99.140.184.64 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Some good work there, though citing your work would be great. Just one problem with the use of "Czechoslovakia" in the background of his family. This was among the better known states created in the aftermath of World War I. In a 19th century context, would this be the Kingdom of Bohemia? Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciation for the Gwelphs-and-Ghibellines edits. The harder research was about the Jewish identity questions versus the National Socialist Ideology passages which I could not tell if they met your standards on this tough issue. Also difficult was your Judge-nullification question of Kelsen which was not completely crystal clear because of its complexity. Again, with good regards for the challenge questions. 76.193.165.73 (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG doesn't assess redirects.
Please don't tag the talk pages of redirects with a WPVG banner. It only creates error in the report since the project doesn't assess those. Thanks! :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  02:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567658339 your edit] to Claudia (gens) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * * Drusus Julius (D. f.) D. n. Caesar (Drusus Caesar), son of Germanicus, imprisoned and put to

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Claudia (gens), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drusus Claudius Nero (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) 10:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Flavii
Hello Dimadick! Please check a discussion I opened on the addition of Category:Flavii to late imperial Roman figures unrelated to the actual gens Flavia. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  11:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Culture
This is inactive, & there is no point adding its banners anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Re:Inactive projects and banners - I have a very different point of view - regardless of a projects inactivity or activity, the placing of project banners on talk pages is a positive project maintenance action that in the long term aids the overall capacity to understand where projects exist to support and maintain articles related to the subject of the project - and also to show up those articles or collections of articles that are not supported by a related subject. just my 2cents worth. sats 07:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

image
I believe if you read the discussion page you will find a decision was made earlier in August to keep this image. Verne Equinox (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your point being? I don't recall removing the image from any page. Dimadick (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
—Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571753005 your edit] to Revisionist Western may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * figures, and this aspect of the spaghetti Western came to be one of its universal attributes as seen in a wide variety of these films, beginning with one of the first popular spaghetti

Burnt offering (Judaism)
Sorry I pinged you but maybe you didn't get it. Can you please look again at Talk:Burnt offering (Judaism), the proposal has (Judaism) in the title so is unlikely to be confused with non-Jewish burnt offerings. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the practice has more to do with Jerusalem practices rather than the ancient Jewish diaspora, don't you? Dimadick (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, my point exactly, the practice of burnt offering (Judaism) ended in 70CE. So why are you supporting an ancient Jewish diaspora Hebrew/Aramaic name korban olah from the Talmud for something that finished 400 years before the Talmud was written? Your argument here and there is in support of the move, but you've written Oppose. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D. H. Th. Vollenhoven, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallelism (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) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Orhan's spouse
Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Status of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Hi Dimadick. I think you are misunderstanding what the article called 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' is. It is not a sovereign state. It refers to a period during the existence of the United Kingdom when it included all of Ireland. The United Kingdom has existed since 1801 to present, and there is only one article covering that sovereign state, all other articles cover the history of that sovereign state in specific periods. Regards, Rob (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So your solution is linking historical articles to an article about a modern state with internet connection? The United Kingdom only exists since the 1920s. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Its about the state since 1801. You're wrong. You're linking to an historical period, and causing much confusion. The succession of 10% of the population of the UK is not that significant to state it on every article. Stop it. Rob (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Secession, not succession. And it fundamentally changed the ethnic composition. Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to start a discussion at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Current consensus is that United Kingdom covers the state since 1801. Any further edits you make regarding this is vandalism. Stop or I will report you. Rob (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Report what? That you are delinking historical articles and presenting false information? Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are linking sections for countries to a historical periods. There for countries. Its in the name...
 * Rob (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Kingdom of Scotland, etc. are all historic states. Not historic periods. The periods are the Georgian era, the Victorian era, and the Edwardian era. Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not as per consensus. Historical periods are any periods in history. History of the United Kingdom (1945–present) is another article covering a historical period. I'm not discussing this here, if you want to debate this, take it up at talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but consensus is strongly in support of the view that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article covers a historical period of the United Kingdom. Please avoid making edits against consensus in future. Rob (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What consensus? The only ones involved in the discussion of this consensus were you and DrKiernan. Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See Talk:United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland. Rob (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You have got to be kidding me. A six-year old discussion of three users, including myself, where I argue that "Redefinitions of a state's title tend to reflect changes both in territory and government.", Bastin argues that that the article should follow the template of West Germany and remain speaking about the past, and Petecollier argues "The UKGBI is worthy of its own article beyond a doubt, and that article by its very nature needs to be historical.".

The article being historical, not the subject being a historical period. Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not discussing this in a private space, if you want to start a discussion at talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland then go ahead. You will need to provide sources for your claim, which you wont find, as this has already been analysed and discussed by editors over 6 years ago. Don't make any more disruptive edits. Rob (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Plan 9 from Outer Space
Hello Dimadick. I noticed your interest in, and extensive work on, the Plan 9 article. I should point out that Hugh Thomas is both credited and uncredited. He is uncredited as a gravedigger. But he does have an Associate Producer credit in the original print, which still survives in some of the online versions. You'll see it on one of those cardboard "headstones". Hugh Thomas is dead, but his younger sister, Mary Davis, lives in Atlanta. She is a good friend. Hugh Thomas funded much of the production from an inheritance that he "appropriated" from his kid sister (she was in her teens at the time, and knew nothing about how her money was being spent), and from his mother. The other members of the Baptist Church were minor contributors. I have been trying to get that information (along with a number of other interesting details) in print, so that it can be included in the article with an authoritative reference. But it is hard to get a reliable source interested in such an old story. Only fanzines, which can't be cited, seem interested. So, if you get a chance, you might want to look at one of those archived (online) versions of the print to confirm that Hugh Thomas is, indeed, credited. Gulbenk (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death
You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Error
Please refer to the page Talk:Pietro Paolo Cristofari. Thanks. Kenchikka (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will contact him. Grateful! Kenchikka (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Too bad, he has already not edited since January 2012! What to do? Kenchikka (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could search for further information on Cristofari on googlebooks. If there is a better source on the subject, you can effectively rewrite the stub article and remove the erroneous information. Dimadick (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Categories
I see you already found the discussion at Category talk:Martial arts media. I thought User:Jmcw37 made a valid point - certainly a search using categories mixes up factual and fictional characters when they are included in the tree but I also (as noted in the above discussion) don't see a good alternative. Is there a clearer Wiki policy statement then the one  User:Jmcw37 quoted and should this be taken somewhere to get a larger consensus.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going by the practice of Category:People which includes Category:Fictional characters as a subcategory, and note that most of its categories have fictional subcategories. Category:Politicians has subcategory Fictional politicians, Category:Archaeologists has subcategory Category:Fictional archaeologists, etc. It has been the de facto consensus for several years, though I am not aware of any specific statement on the matter. Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I'ld like to see what User:Jmcw37 thinks on the matter and maybe this is something that should be taken to the wider community. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586713280 your edit] to She Was an Acrobat's Daughter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * is depicted among the lyrics, and the audience sings its content: "please do not spit on the floor" .<ref name="Hartley">{{cite web|url= http://likelylooneymostlymerrie.blogspot.gr/2012/05/160-she-
 * Steve, That's All Folks!: The Art of Warner Bros. Animation, Henry Holt and Company, 1990

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slingshot 6 7/8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tenderfoot (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) 09:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Philosophy
Greetings, I really appreciate the contributions that you have made in adding articles and categories to WP:PHILO via the project banner. Other than myself, you are probably the next most prolific editor in this regard. I think you are a little over-inclusive, but I don't really mind too much, as I would rather have those articles covered than missing, and since they show up in the log, it is nice to have the option of removing them, rather than just not knowing about them at all. With that said, not every issue that can be analysed philosophically is a topic in the project. If that were the case all of wikipedia would be covered. Usually, it is limited to philosophers, philosophical concepts, and literature. This doesn't include every application of philosophical concepts (like corruption in every particular nation, for instance. I am also a little dubious that the theology project applied to any of those either). I wouldn't even say anything, except when it's a dozen new arrivals, it gets to be a chore. Thanks, and keep up the great work. Greg Bard (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I see which Wikiprojects cover the central article on any given concept and add them to the localized versions as well. "Corruption" has long been added to Wikiproject Philosophy, under the ethics taskforce, thus the addition. Philosophy still covers aesthetics, right? Dimadick (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a pretty good guideline, but again, philosophy covers the abstract concept (e.g. "hope" or "love") not every instance in the world of those concepts. Aesthetics is a major branch of philosophy, but the visual arts project takes over for individual works of art. A good guideline is whether or not there is a philosophy academic from a credible institution who writes about that subject in a philosophy journal, or teaches about that subject in a philosophy class. Greg Bard (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Category talk pages
Maybe it is just convenience that you add a template with them, but when you add project tags on talk pages that are category talk pages - class and importance are surely red-herrings as they do not show up anyways... and to actually fill those in on category pages is strange, they do not register... satusuro 10:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually these are mistakes, I usually try to erase the ratings from the banner I copy. Thanks for correcting it. Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So far I was just watching and noticing without comment or editing, my apologies I have been critical of quite a few other editors recently, and have to reign in my enthusiasms! , if I find any more in the near future, I will correct them - have a good new year satusuro 10:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Astronauts
Hi Dimadick

I just spotted this edit by you. I am puzzled; why you think that Category:Astronauts falls within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Because they are listed as a topic in WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles. Dimadick (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That list includes the following entry: "Astronauts, ancient or Ancient astronauts". However, there is nothing in the article astronauts about pre-20th century stuff, which is all in ancient astronauts and Category:Ancient astronaut speculation.
 * It's good to see that Category:Ancient astronaut speculation is tagged in this way, but it seems to me that your tagging of Category:Astronauts was mistaken, and should be reverted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592634149 your edit] to Spring Fever (1982 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592942029 your edit] to Alien Trespass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gary Westfahl, a reviewer of [science fiction], found this film and The Man from Earth (2007) to be overlooked gems of the genre. He

68.45.241.10 returns!
hello? I have a problem with a persistent IP vandal that has returned. whoever has the IP address stated is disrupting Looney Tunes articles by either overlinking or adding links to things unrelated to the article. request crackdown on these edits. Visokor (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hell-Bent for Election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security (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) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

About your recent edits on Walt Disney
I appreciate your effort on this article. I know you'd feel that your edits shall not be perished, and I agree with it. However, your edits (see here) have caused numerous citation errors, and the two sections you worked on are now way too large, and hence are given WP:Undue weight. I suggest that you revert the whole thing back to the original by editing the edit version before yours. Then we can discuss how to improve this article together. Don't worry, all your sources can still be found in the revision history. Please consider my suggestion. Forbidden User (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue Weight? In an article with such a large Legacy section? I would think they are too short. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The two subsections you worked on are only part of the Beginnings section. Also, the two of them combined are larger than the Legacy section already. Still thinking they're too short? By the way, I've posted on the talk page about a new section, which consists of biographical contents. Feel free to join. Forbidden User (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll be off until 25 June. If you wish to continue our discussion, please wait until then. Thanks.Forbidden User (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Early life of Walt Disney
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Early life of Walt Disney, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://originalmickeymousecharacters.weebly.com/walt-disney.html.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This should be the reason why your link to the page was red-linked. It seems you have addressed the issue, and so I probably won't revert your template again. Thank you for your effort. Welcome to discuss on June 25.Forbidden User (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI
You have been mentioned at AN/I - thought you might be interested to know that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_effecting_major_category_changes_for_biographies - cheers satusuro 03:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

new Category Jewish law
How does this category relate to Category:Jewish law and rituals? Editor2020, Talk 01:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, Category:Jewish law serves as its parent category and also as a parent to nearly all categories about Jewish legal matters. Dimadick (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Palace of Khudáyár Khán
Hi. I hope this is the correct way to contact you - if not, please forgive and suggest a more appropriate way.

I have received an advisory about your new page on the Palace of Khudáyár Khán, which was on my watch list. I have already contributed a pic to the Kokand page. I have several pix of the KK palace at http://www.panoramio.com/user/463501/tags/Kokand and would be happy to contribute if you think they would be helpful, but am loath to do all the work of uploading to Commons if they are not wanted. Could you kindly let me know, and I'll upload them. You can contact me directly on gwatson@alice.it. Best wishes.

aqsakal 11:50 am, 18 March 2015, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreywatson (talk • contribs) 08:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not really my page, I just did minor edits. If you have multiple pictures of the Palace, you should choose one or two and then upload them. Thanks for your effort. Dimadick (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Obama
First Lady Michelle Obama is not a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. She was extended membership into the Sorority as an honorary member but did not accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.113.119 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)