User talk:Dionysodorus

Welcome to Wikipedia!
- Welcome-

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Cottington, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rugby and Charles I (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) 11:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1918 Liberal candidate descriptions
Hi, I have noticed that you have been editing some of the party label descriptions in the constituency election boxes for the 1918 elections. The whole area of party labels for 1918 is a complex business. I think the term 'Coalition Liberal' is a term that is best avoided where possible when describing Liberal candidates at the 1918 General election. The term is confusing as a number of official Liberal candidates regarded themselves as Coalition Liberals, even though they were not awarded the coupon. Things can be further complicated by official Liberal candidates who were offered the coupon but repudiated it. I have sought to describe all official Liberal candidates as 'Liberal' and then indicated by note if they were endorsed by the Coalition Government and if they repudiated the coupon to state this also. At the time of the 1918 General election there was still only one Liberal Party in the country. It was not until after the election that a clear division emerged and by-election candidates between 1919 and 1922 could be distinguished between those who were Liberal and those who were Coalition Liberal. Graemp (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My aim here has been to tidy up election pages a bit and improve their consistency and clarity. At the moment we seem to have some constituency tables pertaining to the 1918 election that refer to Coalition Liberals, and some that refer to Liberals with the bullet-point note that you mention. My initial impression, at least, is that the former method is preferable, because (a) I think it appears to be more common than the latter method among articles on the 1918 election; (b) it preserves consistency with the Infobox on the 1918 election page; (c) it preserves consistency with the treatment of "Coalition Conservatives" (who seem to be uniformly described as "Coaltion Conservatives", and not indicated as such with notes, in the constituency tables); (d) I don't think the bullet-point method looks quite as neat, because it throws the formatting of the tables off slightly.


 * I think on the whole it would be somewhat preferable to keep the tags "Coalition Liberal" and "Coalition Conservative" for the sake of consistency in these respects. It would also be a good idea to improve the 1918 election and Coalition coupon pages to provide a clearer explanation of the ambiguities inherent in the terms (I might have a go at that sometime). Dionysodorus (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that consistency is something to aim for where possible. I have been doing work on the 1918 constituency results for some time and can confirm that the use of 'Liberal' with a coupon note is more common than 'Coalition Liberal'. Likewise, the term 'Unionist' with any coupon note is more common than 'Coalition Conservative'. I agree that using the bullet point may not be the neatest but it is a common method used to highlight any particular point regarding the label for a candidate at an election. Perhaps more important than neatness is accuracy and conveying to the reader all the important information. Unfortunately, using the term 'Coalition Liberal' only, withholds more relevant information and using the term can also be inaccurate, as well as providing the reader with a misleading impression. There are some instances where the use of 'Coalition Liberal' is advisable, such as in constituencies where there was more than one Liberal and it is clear which Liberal was the official Liberal eg. Bishop Auckland.
 * I think the 1918 General election page serves a different purpose and that it helps the reader to classify the Liberals into two different groups and thus on that page use the term 'Coalition Liberal' more freely. There are classification errors and inconsistencies on that page which I have largely ignored and have no plans to address. Anything you can do to improve that page should be welcomed. Graemp (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Myself I still rather think it would be preferable if the 127 seats mentioned at United Kingdom general election, 1918 as "Coalition Liberals" corresponded exactly to 127 seats at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 (there are 124 there, if my count was right), and if all these "Coalition Liberals" were described as such in all places. I also don't really think Coalition Liberals running against Liberals ought to have a different colour from Coalition Liberals not running against Liberals; either they all ought to be bullet-pointed Liberals, or they all ought to be "Coalition Liberals".
 * Anyway, I'm not trying to be contentious, just to tidy up really, and I do think there ought to be some kind of system - so if you would like to revert any of what I did/put it in line with your previous system, please feel free to. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You highlight the numerical discrepancy between United Kingdom general election, 1918 and List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918. I think United Kingdom general election, 1918 is/should be concerned with candidates elected, whereas List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 is/should be concerned with the party whip those elected took upon election and subsequently throughout that parliament. The discrepancy you highlight can be explained by the difference in classification of some individuals at the election and in the subsequent parliament. I have not carefully checked the classifications in List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 but I do know that 136 Liberals were elected with the support of the coupon and 29 without. Of those 136 couponed Liberals, only 128 took the Coalition Liberal whip. Of those 29 uncouponed Liberals 10 took the Coalition Liberal whip. Therefore, in my view, List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 should describe 138 Liberals as 'Coalition Liberal' and 27 as 'Liberal'. As for the article United Kingdom general election, 1918 the table and infobox as currently presented, should show 27 as 'Liberals' and 138 as Coalition Liberals. The split currently used in the article is one used by one particular reputable source. However reputable sources disagree with each other. It is for this reason that I have steered clear of editing United Kingdom general election, 1918. I think there are only three of your edits that I would want to revert/clarify; Bedford, Swansea East, Brecon and Radnorshire. As regards the Members of Parliament tables in all the constituency articles, my view is that they should follow the same principal as the tables in the various List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election tables, in that they should indicate what whip the individual took rather than any label they used during an election. Graemp (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you mean to write "Therefore, in my view, List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1918 should describe 138 Liberals as 'Coalition Liberal' and 27 as 'Liberal'. As for the article United Kingdom general election, 1918 the table and infobox as currently presented, should show 29 as 'Liberals' and 136 as Coalition Liberals."?
 * Anyway, the situation you describe is not the situation currently in place, either on the election page, or on the list of MPs elected. The election page has 127 Coalition Liberals (against your 136?), whereas the list of MPs has 124 (against your 138 - I think). (Do you know where the discrepancy between the current situation and your figures comes from?)
 * For the moment at least, I think you should go ahead and revert/clarify those edits that you mention as you see fit. I think that, ideally speaking, it would be a good idea if someone went through the articles and clarified the terminology and categorisation that is being used in each case (e.g. it's not at all clear to the reader at the moment that the election article is supposed to be indicating what they ran as, or the MP list indicating what whip they took, and there are other unclear elements), explained exactly how the numbers add up in the election article, and ensured that this was actually what is going on across the board - but of course that would be somewhat complicated and I probably won't get round to it anyway. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the table and infobox as currently presented, in my view should show 29 as 'Liberals' and 136 as 'Coalition Liberals'.
 * I think it is hard to interpret a situation in place based on the 1918 articles due to the discrepancies that exist. As I said, different sources provide different figures. Check out the Josiah Wedgwood article as an example of how different interpretations can be made. It was not easy when party labels did not appear on ballot papers. Graemp (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, rather hard. I do, though, think it would, if one put one's mind to it, be possible to set down reasonably consistent principles, and ensure that each individual MP - even cases such as Wedgwood, with appropriate caveats stated in the right places - get put down under the same heading on different tables where appropriate (and under different headings in the eighteen or so cases where the whip was different from whether the MP was couponed). This might, in some cases, involve adhering to one set of data and putting down the other, say, as an alternative where it differed. But I do understand that the whole thing isn't black and white, and it would take a fair bit of doing. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * French legislative election, 1919
 * added a link pointing to Democratic Alliance


 * French legislative election, 1973
 * added a link pointing to Nancy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=673029229 your edit] to Niobe 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * has been associated with Niobe's legend since Antiquity ]]
 * ] (the pale one).

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French legislative election, 1893, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sadi Carnot. 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) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Vaughan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Vaughan. 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) 09:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:INTEGRITY
Hello. Please note that this edit was not helpful. It obfuscated what the source really says (*guraj is not mentioned in the source). Also you got the title wrong. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see I didn't state this in the talk page, but I was also tidying up Boeotia at the same time - which had a section on Graia which I removed. So as well as merging Graïke into Graea, I also copied into Graea some information on Graea from Boeotia (rather than simply deleting it), which apparently wasn't sourced properly. Anyway I'm glad you've picked up on it. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Liaison Committee
 * added links pointing to Frank Field, Robert Neill, Neil Carmichael and Julian Lewis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also at AN over your support for the draft prod nonsense. Wikijuniorwarrior (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * you shouldn't criticize people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akskdjfjrhrheh (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You need a kitty too

Akskdjfjrhrheh (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 

Closing discussions
Don't worry! I'm not contesting anything; I come in peace! I noticed your note at WT:ANI about recently clearing out the backlog at ANRFC. Thanks for helping out! I just wanted to make myself available if you wanted help getting into assessing consensus at some of the more obscure areas of the site. For instance, WP:CFD could always use more closers (and participants). I'm one of the regular closers there and at WP:TFD, but my activity is likely to go down over the next year, so I'm more-or-less trying to "train" people in these areas to keep them from going to shit when I'm not around. Anyhow, let me know if you're at all interested. I'm also happy to look over past closes for a friendly peer review or give advice/mentoring on closing in general if you think that would be helpful. The site needs an army of non-admin closers to keep itself sustainable with the lack of new admins. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:BU Rob13! That's very kind of you, and I shall ask you if I find myself in need of advice. I don't know if I will get involved at CFD or TFD, although I might have a look sometime. I shall probably continue to keep an eye on AN/RFC though. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Especially since another backlog will no doubt amass at AN/RFC in due course, if mass-listing there continues to be done. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on numbers of aircraft built in lists
Hi, My apologies for bothering you on the closure of this RfC (for which, many thanks). There seems some disagreement over the meaning of the "status quo" in your summing-up, which I am hoping you can clarify. On the one hand there is the current guideline. On the other hand there is a longstanding practice in certain lists, which predates the guideline and so is regarded by some as the "status quo" which the guideline is challenging. This is resurrecting the old edit wars. Would you be able to clarify which you mean? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Steelpillow: I've gone on holiday and will have a look when I get back in a week (no proper computer here). But, off the top of my head, I think your opening of the RfC said that there was a pre-existing consensus, and therefore I assumed that Option A and the status quo basically amounted to the same thing? But if that's under dispute I might need to clarify my close. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That was - and is - my view. But some other editors argued that the true "status quo" consensus is different from that presented in the guideline and so are taking your statement to mean what they want it to. They are continuing their edits on that basis. Have a great holiday. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (A. M. Dale) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating A. M. Dale, Dionysodorus!

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

"Thanks for this. I've added as online-available sources the obituary in her papers, which is available on Google Books, and also a source for her time at Bletchley Park by Thomas Webster. You might want to take a look at the chronology of her early career, though - her obituary has a different chronology (Vienna and Lund first, then Oxford) and place of birth (West Bridgford just outside Nottingham, not Sheffield)."

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

Learn more about page curation.


 * User:Blythwood, thank you. However, the source doesn't say she worked at Bletchley Park, as your edit suggests; so I think I will remove that. In fact, I'm sure she didn't work at Bletchley Park; she worked at the Foreign Office in London, and the exact nature of her connection with the work at Bletchley Park is not clear from your sources ("there was an attachment to Bletchley Park" is what one says). Dionysodorus (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably in London, that is: if she had worked at Bletchley Park, I imagine the sources would say so explicitly. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Arsenius
 * added a link pointing to Arsenie


 * Franciscus Portus
 * added a link pointing to Aphthonius

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to note both of these links to disambiguation pages are intended. Dionysodorus (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Colonel William Careless
Hi,

I moved the article you recently moved from "William Careless (Carlos)" to "William Carlos", once again, this time to "William Careless". I did this for a number of reasons. The name Careless was his original name, it was his family name and connects him to other members of his family including a Marian Protestant martyr (who is in Foxe's Book of Martyrs), the family largely, even from the time of his adoptive grandson, Charles, reverted to Careless from Carlos. The Carelesses were, and are, a family particular to the English West Midlands and renaming the article would remove this obvious link, if readers are searching for the name online. Also, throughout the text of the article he his referred to as "Careless". Regards, Urselius (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Urselius, your above post, which is quite sensible, suggests "Careless", but you seem to have actually moved it to "Carleless". I assume this is a typo (and not another genuine spelling variant?), so I'm moving it to "Careless" according to your above rationale. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Urselius, I'm finding I can't actually mechanically do that, and the thing is telling me to take it to WP:RM. Since you did the original move with the typo, would you mind taking it to RM yourself, so that it doesn't look like there's a dispute in question? That is, assuming it is a typo. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Technology improvement
We have seen the creation of the iron man suit,the hoverbike,the hoverboard and others.I agree with that they nice and are a significant improvement and I will really want to no their future.The iron man suit TALOS the tactical light operator suit which the military defense unvieled which can repel bullets and produce life saving oxygen Al-mudathir (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Institute of Directors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Martin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible CoI of person who reverted your Theobalds Park edit?
Hello. I noticed that you - rightly - reverted the title of that article back to its widely known name, but User:Phecommerce changed it back to include the De Vere branding. This editor, interestingly, has a contribution history that seems to consist almost exclusively, on editing/renaming of articles on hotels owned by de Vere. No consensus was obtained for their renaming/redirecting. I've pointed this out on his/her talk page and suggest they look at WP:COI. I'd suggest you rename it back. If that user again reverts it I'll ask for their edits and their account to be reviewed by an administrator. Straw Cat (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing it out Straw Cat! I entirely agree with you. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2018(UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting the article/cancelling the redirect. Please could you explain how one does this, as there are quite a few other articles about long-established hotels which this user has redirected to a brand name, which I would like to change back (at least until there is a consensus the new name should apply). Straw Cat (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You just move the article, just as if you were moving it for the first time, using the move tool (under 'More' next to the search bar, on the screen). The instructions for doing this are at HELP:MOVE. Occasionally this doesn't work for technical reasons (for instance, De Vere Horwood Estate won't go), in which case one has to take it to WP:RM. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Straw Cat (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)