User talk:Dominic/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey babe

Yeah in the past couple weeks I've managed to stumble around and find most of that but the welcome is appreciated---the Picture tutorial is a good thing to have. Something you might be able to help me with is figuring out what the notations next to my updates on the contributions page mean. I take it m is "minor edit" but what about the other stuff like (top), etc?
16:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Ø

From user page

re your comments to me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.6.40.203 I despise gladhanding and backslapping ("Hi! Welcome! Glad you could be here! We would all love to suck you cock!" [personal attack --Dmcdevit 22:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)]) -- it makes me gag; please don't do it again. Feel free to delete this comment after you've read it.[reply]

What the hell? I think user 68.6.40.203 is a somewhat disturbed individual. Someone says "hi" and this is the response? - Pioneer-12 08:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's none of your business, fuckface [personal attack --Dmcdevit 22:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)]. That you have nothing better to do than berate some IP address for lacking gratitude strongly indicates serious neurosis [personal attack --Dmcdevit 22:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)] of your own.[reply]
While I can respect not wishing to be gladhanded, as you put it, or berated, neither seems to really merit the level of vehemence you responded with. Mostly, it would've been better to post this on the talk page rather than the user page so I'll put it there now. Ø 18:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Ø. I'm not sure there's any point in resonding to this. But don't worry, I wouldn't normally welcome anyone twice! I suppose that you means you don't want to sign up. Fine with me, as I don't think disruptive users really deserve the hearty welcome I gave you. By the way, I don't think either I or Pioneer appreciated your vandalism, as I can tell by your edits that you definitely know what a talk page is, so use them! I also recommend you see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and come back and say hi when you're willing to help. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my welcome, I love new friends. --Dmcdevit 22:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC) (PS, I think you misquoted me above.)[reply]

Re: graduation

Thanks, D! Yeah, "real life" has gotten busy but I'll still make time for Wikipedia. I've got to merge Residency and Medical residency when I get a chance. And by the way, um, you are not supposed to be editing (and I counted 53 edits from you so far today). — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ack! I know... Can't stop... And I have the three most important tests I have ever taken, that determine whether I get my IB diploma, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednseday. (Darn you, Biology!). And I'll graduate (from puny high school) on the 26th! --Dmcdevit 17:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brookie Here

Thanks for the note - isn't it nice when you someone gets in touch? Can you clarify about the tag point and the User:user comment? - I can't see what this is - dimbo! I'm not a Practhet fan - I'll have to look into this! Kind regards 18:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Barren Fork River

Please be specific in what you want to be cleaned up about this article, preferably on the articles "talk" page. It's hard to be very literary in creating an article on a small, prosaic, but nonetheless notable river. Rlquall 04:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 210.11.188.20

Hi Dmcdevit,

It does appear that this user(s) is a problem. Unfortunately, these IPs belong to schools in Melbourne, Australia ([1]) so valid users can edit from these terminals; usually I try to block them for no longer than 24 hours. (I've noticed that when it's evening here on the west coast of the U.S. there is a ton of vandalism from Australian schools.) When it is a static IP owned by, say, a cable customer, that's another thing entirely, and a long-term block is in order. If he vandalises again tonight I'll block him. Antandrus 04:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Transwiki log

Shal stop deletion as requested, but something has to be done with this page: the moved to en.wiktionary.org section alone is 122k! Physchim62 08:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad data pages

Well, you certainly found someone interested in adding railroad content. I've been creating and updating railroad data almost exclusively (and I list pages that I create on User:Slambo/Trains and graphics that I create for them on User:Slambo/Gallery). I suspect that most of the railroad articles showing up on your list are the result of the footer navigation templates, especially Template:Whyte types, Template:EMD diesels and others. We've got quite a few navigation templates as shown on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates, so I wouldn't be surprised to see many more appear on this list. I've stubbed out a couple more from the Whyte types list, and I'm slowly adding information for the EMD diesel types as well as articles for other railroads as shown on Template:US class 1, Template:US class 2 and Template:US class 3. slambo 16:56, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Tichborne's Elegy

On your recommendation, I just now read Tichborne's Elegy. I like that a lot. Thank you. One thing I've learned is to always take recommendations from people who like Invictus.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 02:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon's Rebellion

Hello Dmcdevit. Thanks for the request to do something about the above. I have attempted to get it down to a reasonable length and have also learnt a lot about this event in so doing. I have made a comment on the discussion page of the article giving my reason for the manner in which I tackled it. I have a set of Collier's Encyclopaedia which gave me a much less detailed account of the Rebellion, so could see the wood for the trees (and no I didn't do anything illegal!!). I'd be glad of your comments on the result. I wasn't sure about a picture though? Peter Shearan 19:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't too worried about being British when I got going with the rewrite - it was all very interesting, and I shall be quite happy to take on similar tasks. Thanks for the assistance with the pictures and extra info at the end. I shall be adding to my own page in due course. Peter Shearan 06:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting after a transwiki

This is a real grey area. Some admins delete items, others relist them on VfD. There is also the issue that our lawyers doubt that any form of the transwikiing process is in keeping with the GFDL. Personally I feel that most article can be safely deleted after being moved. Some sit for months before they are transwikied, and are sometimes considerably altered in that time, in this case they should probably be relisted on VfD. - SimonP 02:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Finger licking good

Sorry, and thanks for reminding me again. Can't we slap {{Transwikied to Wiktionary}} on to the article page, or if that is considered to large and bulky, a smaller template with similar content? I can't see how this is different from {{vfd}}, {{npov}}, {{cleanup}}, and friends which are not hidden on the talk page, either. Rl 06:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even more interesting

Not only am I from the same region and in the same year of education as you, I'll be going to Mathcamp at Reed College this summer. PlatypeanArchcow 06:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Black Death

Thanks for the help with the Black Death page. You took the religion section exactly in the direction I wanted to go (but I lacked a few key facts to take it there). Hiberniantears 17:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary

Hey what's up. I'm trying to get a group of Wikipedians together to agree on moving articles such as List of English words of Spanish origin (which has gotten out of hand) out of Wikipedia. I also notified Uncle G: he had tried to get it transferred to Wiktionary some months ago. Decius 12:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No bad feelings about the Dacian list, because it would've happened eventually & I even thought of removing the list before to avoid the whole situation. I forgot to mention another item: List of English words of French origin. Decius 02:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Acacia species

You have requested for a cleanup of this page. At the bottom are all the accepted names without common names (at least as far as I know). This large genus is about to be split up in several genera. But this will take about another two years before this is official. In the mean time, I would suggest to leave the list as it is and to remove the cleanup template. JoJan 14:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the above message I didn't imply anything, certainly not you doing anything on purpose. Don't be so over-sensitive. This is just a list, and nothing more. A list doesn't need any further information. This list belongs to the article Acacia, where you can find all the information related to this genus. And as to lumping so many species under one bullet : this is certainly not uncommon in such long lists. This avoids putting little known species between more important species (that at least have a common name). This also avoids, for the sake of brevity, a list with several hundred (or even more than a thousand) bullets. JoJan 18:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense, no matter what reason you give. It is not any briefer to have the same number of items, just in one bullet. Instead, it makes it into a massive text-dump-like block of letters that become nearly impossible to read, bulleting them makes it readable. And it's quite a cheap procedure to simply explain what it means. Lists are for information and navigation; in its current state, this list hardly does either with its bottom half. Take a look at Wikipedia:What is a featured list, and Wikipedia:Lists. And I don't know why you think I was sensitive; I never said you accused me of anything... --Dmcdevit 00:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Plague of Vienna

I dug out a little more information on this outbreak in Vienna and added it to your new article. If we want to do something about Milan in 1629, it might be better to rename it the "Italian Plague of 1629-1631." Many of the Italian cities (Venice, Florence, Bologna, and throughout Lombardy) were hit just as hard as Milan but, because of its trading empire, its outbreak is better known. Hope the info helps. WBardwin 00:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcdevit, sorry, I dont have any resorces on this at the moment, will keep it in mind if I come across. Stbalbach 05:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Great Plague" redirect set up was around when I arrived. A disamig page should be just fine, since there are other "Great Plagues" as well. These are the ones that I know about. There are probably others.

Great Plague of Athens (430-427 BC)
causal agent: bubonic plague/smallpox/measles/typhus??
Great Plague of England (1348-1350)
causal agent: bubonic plague
Great Plague of Iceland (1402-1404)
causal agent: bubonic plague
Great Plague of Ireland (1348-1351)
causal agent: bubonic plague
Great Plague of London (1664-1665)
causal agent: bubonic plague
Great Plague of Milan (1629-1631)
aka Italian Plague of 1629-1631.
causal agent: bubonic plague
Great Plague of Scotland (1348-1350)
causal agent: bubonic plague
Great Plague of Vienna (1679-1680's)
causal agent: bubonic plague

WBardwin 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created the "Italian Plague of 1629-1631" stub. I will try and add more info later. WBardwin 20:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - regarding our Plague sorting/organization effort and the pages that Wetman initiated. He and I are looking at organizational and topic alternatives on the Talk:Plague page. If you would, please look over what I said and what he wrote on the article page, and maybe chime in with your ideas. In my mind this could be a big effort. Thanks. WBardwin 01:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German help

Hey, I was wondering if you could just help me out with a quick translation. I'm copying a good image from the German Wikipedia here. So I'm just trying to figure out what the caption says so I know what's going on. Could you tell me what "Darstellung der Beulenpest in der Toggenburgbibel" means? Its from the Black Death page at de:Schwarzer_Tod. Thanks a lot. --Dmcdevit 05:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It means "Illustration of bubonic plague in the Toggenburg Bible". --Angr/comhrá 05:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks a bunch. I wanted to know where it came from. Quick service is appreciated! :) --Dmcdevit 05:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem! That'll be ten bucks. --Angr/comhrá 05:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki cats

Hi there! I understand that you can't just transwiki a whole cat, I just wanted to bring the cats to the attention of the transwikefactors. If I have some spare time, I'll look through them and mark some articles as transwikable. Yours, Radiant_* 08:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • "I'd rather just stick up a tag and forget about it so someone else can do it." - no, that's not what I meant (and I was under the wrong impression that lists could in fact be transwikied), sorry about that. I do have those cats (and lists) I tagged on my to-do list, and I fully intend to go over them and tag individual words. I'd have done it yesterday except that I was busy cleaning up the month-and-a-half backlog on WP:TFD. Yours, Radiant_* 07:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • English words cat done. Please check out Orange (word) - it's really lengthy but concerns only etymology and rhyming; what should be done with it? Radiant_* 12:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki process q

Hi there! After some discussion at Verboten, I'm wondering how the transwiki cleanup process actually works... could you please explain to me what happens to an article after it gets botted into Wikt and listed on WP:TL? Radiant_* 08:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The transwiki bot

Actually, your wikt:User:McBot is hard to miss when you're on wiktionary for any length of time :) I was getting curious, I suppose, as to who was running it, so I only followed your links. Oh, BTW, I'm a bit ashamed of this user page of mine - nothing interesting there now, and has never been... But thanks for stopping by, anyway, and see you on wiktionary. \Mike(z) 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{wi}} maybe?

I left a note on User talk:Uncle G but didn't get an answer yet. However, I have just seen an alternative solution for transwikied articles in Red-handed. Looks perfect to me. Because it is on the article page, it is extra work, but it would provide a simple (bot-work) and permanent solution. Rl 08:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Rl 19:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mostwanted

I just expanded User:Gkhan/Mostwanted into 1000 articles, per your request. If you want, I can make it even longer, but i can also modufy my program to automatically sort it into categories. Why don't you give me some, and some condition it should satisfy (like "if title starts with X it should go into Y). gkhan 00:38, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

PR comment

Cheers mate, I don't think you are stupid and I very much appreciate the feedback. I'll look into getting this resolved soon. In the meantime, could I ask you to sneak a peak at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows 2000/archive1 and make comments on this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do Port Jackson next :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki

Ok, thanks for the explanation, but I was wondering what happens afterwards; there is a difference between 'move to wikt' and 'copy to wikt'. Are wikt'ed articles rewritten? Merged? VfD'ed? Are they speediable? If not, should they be? Radiant_* 11:52, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lists of lists

That's a good point. If a list of lists were comprehensive (i.e. has all the lists on WP), it might still not be comprehensive (i.e. what if WP doesn't have all the needed lists?) so featuring it would be misleading. --Dmcdevit 20:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This objection is absurd. How could a reference guarantee that all subjects are there?? It is impossible for all topics to be covered in any encyclopedia. And if there is some reason why a semi-important religious figure should not be listed, the same thing happens as when material that should not be there is put in any Wikipedia article. Why is Wikipedia less able to be "comprehensive" than any external source would be? Hundreds of mathematicians work on Wikipedia. Obviously they cannot make the list complete. A far smaller number of mathematicians work on the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which has a far less complete set of mathematical topics. And why would external references be any more important here than in any article, making sure everything is there that should be? Michael Hardy 00:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood me. If you have a list of something, then it is quite possible to ascertain its comprehensiveness, by how well it covers the topic. But, a list of lists on Wikipedia is much different. Because, while it is quite easy to say that all of the lists on Wikipedia are covered, it is another thing to say that all those (listed) lists are comprehensive. What I mean is List of lists of mathematical topics may be comprehensive in that it does have all WP's lists of mathematical topics, but that doesn't mean it is comprehensive in that it covers all of the mathematical topics out there, just the ones in Wikipedia. --Dmcdevit 00:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understood you very well. It is impossible and undesirable to try to list all math topics "out there". And silly, IMO. You may as well ask whether Wikipedia is comprehensive in the sense of having an article on every possible subject "out there". Michael Hardy 21:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, tone down the language and let's have a peaceful discussion. On the FL criteria page where it should be, and where I have responded. As I said, I am working this out myself, and not necessarily opposing you, so stop trying to bully other people. --Dmcdevit 21:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki Bot

Hey there, sorry about how long it's taken to respond. I'm at a place in my life where I just don't have any time to dedicate to either Wikipedia, Wiktionary, or fixing that dang bot. I hope to someday get at it again. Sorry. Kevin Rector (talk) 23:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Transwiki bot

Without the source code or linking me to the source code, I really can't help that much. You'll have to also provide me a detailed description of what is wrong with the bot. Even if I have the code, I can only hope that Kevin commented it out well. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it, but you might have to wait awhile as my To Do list is rather big at the moment. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki of conspiracy nut

It was not me that moved it, it was Noitall (talk · contributions). I'm moving it back. → Ingoolemo ← talk 07:11, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

FLC objections

Hey, I saw your addition to the FLC page. You included the part from FAC about all objections being actionable, so are we thus saying that all lists are inherently featurable? I think that that was the result of the discussion anyway, but I just wanted to verify that that was intended. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

By saying that all objections must be actionable, you are saying that all lists are inherently featurable. For example, if I say "this list can not possibly have all the elements", then that's not actionable, because the nominator can't do anything about that. It's like objecting in FAC because the article isn't comprehensive but you don't say what it's missing. Your objection will be immediately thrown away. It's also like what happened with the Starfleet article - people didn't think that any article on that topic should be featured. Their objections were discounted until they came up with objections to things that could be fixed. I tend to agree with you on the comprehensive thing; seems like a featured list should be completely comprehensive, but then I see good lists this one, and I'm not sure. --Spangineer (háblame) 01:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I'm dumb. Apparently I've been looking at the FLC page for weeks without having noticed that it says right on it, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to 'fix' the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Then I accuse you of putting it there =). I guess that's what happens when you don't take time to check the edit history. Fortunately, however, this is an interesting discussion, so I don't feel too bad for starting it. I agree with you on the fact that a "list of lists" or other quasi-category/navigational aid is fundamentally different from a list of U.S. presidents, for example, or even Tuf-kat's list. But the problem is that they have the same name. So it's easy to say "that doesn't belong here, it's a template, not an article" on FAC, but it's more difficult to say, "that doesn't belong on FLC, it's not the right kind of list". Do we want FLC to be renamed to something like "Featured Creative List Candidates" or something? Or should we redefine the word "list" to exclude navigational aids? I'd love it if we could, but until then, people are going to say, "this is a list, and this is featured list candidates, so why are you saying that my list can never be featured?" From a practical standpoint, as things currently stand, they have a point. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
But FPC is fundamentally different; you don't have to give a reason for an objection. That's because normally pictures are unalterable (except for minor quality issues), and it comes down to a matter of preference. On FAC, if any stubs get nominated, everyone will say "refer to peer review" or list a long string of problems, but they won't say, "this article can never be featured, regardless of how much work you do and how good it gets". Thus, all nondeletable articles can be featured. Am I making sense? --Spangineer (háblame) 19:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well, do you want to craft a proposal? I'm willing to work with you on one that we can present and have people discuss. Lately there seems to be less interest in debating stuff, so if we came up with a full proposal about what FLC should look like, with specific examples (list of lists bad, list of music genres by region good, list of presidents good, etc.), that would be helpful and would help us reach some sort of consensus. I won't have time to sit down to work on one until at least tomorrow evening (probably), but let me know what you think and we can get started. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps not; it could I suppose be considered institution creep to relentlessly hash out guidelines... on FAC people have differing criteria, and it all works out. I suppose we can see how it goes. Eventually, however, someone is going to put together a great, high-quality list of lists with no references and we'll have to make a decision. Or we can abstain, and avoid the issue altogether =). --Spangineer (háblame) 10:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Letter writing article

I will keep the speedy deletion intact, but if the guy who kept trying to recreate the original article comes back...have fun. :) He literally put every article I've ever written up for deletion in retaliation. In early February, I put the article up for vfd as a way of stopping this guy and the solution was to keep it as a wiki interlink. [[2]] is the vfd discussion on it. If you still want to speedy delete it, go ahead, but as I said, if Richard pulls this crap again, have fun. --Woohookitty 00:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And see, Richardr443 wrote on the talk page about it and is now threatening to recreate the entire article. So I'm going to take the speedy delete off. I know it should be deleted, but this moron is going make my life hell (again) if it's speedy deleted. And actually as I typed this, the article just got deleted. So here we go again. Thanks. --Woohookitty 05:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's ok. I probably overreacted a little. But yes, why people go off when we put something on another of the Wiki sites, I dunno. The original article was literally a step by step on how to write a letter. Doesn't exactly fit here. --Woohookitty 07:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I put a permanent ban request on the Vandalism in progress page. I have no idea if it will go through or not, but I thought I'd give it a shot. Isn't Richard fun? :) I don't want to make it sound like I blame for any of this, since eventually the interwiki link was going to have to be deleted and I knew all along that Richard would immediately recreate the article. Anyway, I think we should not touch the article for now. That way people can see just how unencyclopedic it is and all of that. Thanks for the post on the incident page. I really appreciate it. I have a feeling that RickK is going to do something about it. He's a very, very good admin and he's good at stuff like this. So we'll see. --Woohookitty 07:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, amazing isn't it? And he hasn't really did squat outside of this article. You didn't see some of his comments while he was originally fighting the wikify tag that I put on the article. Believe it or not, what started this was me seeing letter writing on the articles to be wikified page. Anyway, his comments were about making wikipedia into a real encyclopedia and that all encyclopedias had articles like this and all of this other nonsense. --Woohookitty 08:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yay! CesarB has put a tag on it that I've never seen before. Basically says that the page should not be recreated and that if you want to recreate it, you need to discuss it with the community first. --Woohookitty 19:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transfer to Wiktionary

If you want to copy information to Wiktionary, that's fine with me, but the notice you used explicitly states that it is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopaedic one. As I disagreed with this, I removed the notices along with my explanation. Warofdreams 09:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary

Would it be possible NOT to transwiki items that we already have? It just adds to the confusion. Today you have dumped ologist, ego surfing, push and toady on us to be deleted. And did you look at push? Good grief.

I'm a glutton for punishment

Besides Richard, I am also dealing with this user named SNIyer12. He wrote 2 articles. One is named Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau and the other one is named Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. Originally, he had over 50 pictures on each article. That's...50. And it was written chronologically like it was a newspaper article. So it was put on my taskforce desk. So I did major editing...cut it in half...and now SNIyer12 is slowly reverting all of my changes. And it's similar to Richard...I've told him several times not to do such and such because it is not what Wikipedia is, but he keeps doing it anyway. What do you do with people like that? It's frustrating as hell. He keeps doing things like linking the same thing several times in the same article. Anyway, I think I deserve an award. :) I have to basically go into the articles every single day and undo his reverts. If you can help at all, please do so. --Woohookitty 20:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I saw you leave a comment on the Admin's noticeboard and cleanup the Translation into English page so thought I'd look you up, I like seeing who my fellow editors are. The 7 languages is not as impressive as it looks I'm afraid: Norwegian, Neo-Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are all mutually intelligible so you only really need to learn one.

Anyway, happy to help someone who likes keeping the place tidy. See you around Rje 21:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Listing on IFD

Hi Dmcdevit. Great work listing unverified orphans on IFD! But when you do that, you need to add {{ifd}} to the image description page, and drop a note at the uploader's talk page asking for information. For example, I decided not to deleteImage:AXthree001.JPG (which you listed on June 6), since it looks like a user photo. I instead asked the uploader, User:Alezane, for more information. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Transwiki bot

I haven't received an email from you... nor have I saw one. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fire me an email at me first, then I'll reply with a reminder what I need from you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{move to wiktionary}}

Hi there! I've done a couple of articles, good luck with them. I believe that all those I've tagged should not be kept in Wikispace (delete or redirect somewhere sensible) but I'll leave that up to the xwiki team. Or VfD, if it must. And sorry for the delay. Yours, Radiant_>|< 11:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiprojects?

Hi! Thanks for your note, I appreciate it. I do have one question: the WikiProject US Congress deals with creating pages like "XXth United States Congress", but none of the participants seem to have contributed to the project for almost a year now! Should I go ahead and do what I think is best? I'm not sure what to say to the official, signed-up participants. Thanks a bunch. Eweisser 03:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominic/Archive2&oldid=1142972312"