User talk:DexDor/Archive 2013

	The Camouflage Cup
	For your fine work improving articles Aircraft camouflage and Military camouflage. Thank you, and keep it up! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although my contributions to those articles were quite small. DexDor (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll look forward to more! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I meant to mention all those perceptive comments, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

could you please explain why you removed some links from DCO?

Even if those links referred to still missing articles, they were useful because they gave hints to different meanings of DCO.

IMHO, adding stub articles for those links would be a better solution.

Kind regards,

--Stefan Weil (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links I removed were links to non-existent articles (redlinks). Redlinks on dab pages aren't completely prohibited, but WP:DABABBREV says "Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article defines the acronym or abbreviation." and WP:DABSTYLE says "Each bulleted entry should have a navigable (blue) link ...". I'm not fond of stubs - IMO it's better to expand an existing article (that has other editors watching it) and then create a new article by splitting off a section than to create a "dead end" stub. Also I wouldn't create even a stub without some knowledge of the subject and an understanding of what WP articles there already are on that topic. 22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a similar question on the DAB for SSE, though I was at first confused by the link you referenced: WP:DABABBREV. When I clicked on it, I was taken to a paragraph that described what I had put there very closely...THEN after I went to the top of the page and was scrolling back down, I discovered that the paragraph was included in a section entitled "What not to include". Wow! Was that confusing.  :-)

I will work on an article referencing SSE as I had troubles finding it, though there are a couple articles using it. The DAB was of no use to me, so I 'fixed' it.

Thanks again, WesT (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of WP:DABABBREV is "Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article defines the acronym or abbreviation." which seems clear to me. Do you have a suggestion for rewording it (keeping the same meaning) ? DexDor (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the part that confused me was that I expected to find an article that defined the acronym. When I found it wasn't there, I (foolishly) assumed that if I created a link to the non-existant page, SOMEone might have the time to put in the article. :-)

It seems to me that instead of saying what not to do, it might say something along the lines of: "If you add an entry on an acronym disabiguation page, make certain that the article referenced defines the acronym." That way empty articles are excluded, and it is up to the person putting in the link to ensure that the definition is actually there before putting in the entry.

Does that work for you?

WesT (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to User:Westley Turner) It's useful/interesting to know how editors have become confused, but I'm not sure that your wording would be an improvement to DABABBREV - I suggest you discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. DexDor (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DexDor

I have closed the CfD discussion on Category:Recipients of the Philippe Chatrier Award as "listify and delete".

As the nominator of the category, would you like to make a start on creating the list?

Please don't feel obliged, but we don't have a listification bot, so somebody will have to do it manually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the list at Talk:Philippe_Chatrier#Award_category. Given the lack of notability and references (and my lack of interest in tennis) I don't intend to create an actual list article. DexDor (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good solution. Thanks for taking the time to do this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Category:Electronics_terminology.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DexDor, I'm not certain whether you're aware the article is in the midst of an FAC? It's my first one and it's certainly proving there's a learning curve to climb. Some days I feel it's going backwards... but I expect I'll look back on it as an interesting experience. Probably. Not sure if this will change your behaviour in any way, but wanted to check you knew. Maybe your comments should be moved there, or maybe we should place a link there, not sure of the protocol. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the FA criteria so my comments were/are suggestions for improvements rather than "this needs to be fixed to get FA" comments. A technical problem stops me editting the FAC review page (as it's not divided into sections it's too big for me to upload). I'm happy for the talk page discussion to be moved to the FAC review page and/or to have a "Comments by DexDor" section referring to it. DexDor (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, glad you knew. I'll put a link there then. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DexDor. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are removing them. Please explain. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean edits like this [1] it's because we categorize mass-produced things by country of origin (which is a defining characteristic) - not by every country that has used some of them which could be dozens/hundreds of countries. Some categories (e.g. Category:Weapons by country) state this explicitly. 06:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you made an edit to PIGS (economics). I've currently opened a RFC on that article. Would you mind commenting on it?

At a more broader level, I'd appreciate more input from experienced editors on that article (regardless of their views on the RFC). --RA (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hate to pile on, especially when its originator is clearly such an industrious and good-faith editor, but I thought that you were absolutely right here. I honestly think it's not a good idea. I've made one rather feeble suggestion as to a possible other use for it, but I am not even sure that there's any future in that. It will be interesting to see how it develops. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have an account but have been too lazy to log in. =) My apologies and thank you for reminding me to log in. BrianBeeler (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 6#Category:Buildings_and_structures_of_the_Arab_Spring.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Editing Category:Military equipment 1980–1989, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ukrainian People's Hromada. Since you had some involvement with the Ukrainian People's Hromada redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DexDor (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DexDor - re my change to "Promession", which you undid, this is a temporary change only so as to move all the words which need to be listed during the listification of Category:Italian loanwords into List of English words of Italian origin. A few of the words, such as this one, are not loanwords, but, as I said, it is a temporary solution to make the listification easier, and will probably last no more than two or three days. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've seen you around a bit, and given the good work you go, you seem like a user who could use admin tools. If you've thought about running for WP:RFA, I'd be willing to nominate you if you are willing to make the jump. Wizardman 02:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm declining for now as (1) I don't have a pressing need for admin tools (e.g. I don't do much vandal-fighting), (2) there's backlogs (e.g. uncategorized pages) that can be worked on without the bit and (3) I might have difficulty at RFA as WP:GRFA and WP:RFAADVICE say (or at least imply) that significant content contribution is needed; minor additions and cleaning up (i.e. the activities I specialise in) don't count. There's many people (e.g. students) adding content (some good, some bad) that needs experienced Wpians to wikify/delete and I prefer to do things like that than to create new articles myself and take them up to GA/FA. DexDor (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I've rolled back your tagging of the blue plaques categories. This is not because I saw your edits as vandalism but simply because it was faster than hitting "undo" every time. I see that the lists exist, but deletion isn't yet the right idea because the categories are empty. With so many pages in these categories, I don't feel like emptying them, but we have a page to take care of the process of emptying and deleting them. As long as there aren't any problems, a bot will remove all of the pages from this categories and then delete them automatically, but if you find that the bot's run but not emptied or deleted one or more categories, leave a note at my talk and I'll happily do whatever's necessary to fix the situation.

The box contains a complete list of the categories in question, so that you don't have to go digging for their names. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it says that you should also add the categories to WP:CFDS (perhaps you did this; I didn't look), where they could be given to the bot if necessary. Everything is dependent on the size of the categories and the willingness of whoever's emptying them — if there are only a few entries, or if you feel like removing the to-be-deleted category from lots of pages, more power to you. We might do well to add something to the category, such as Please make sure that the category is empty before tagging it for deletion; you may empty it yourself or ask an administrator to add it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see I've been reverted here and I was wondering if you could explain to me the difference between this page and Szabó, Vajda, or indeed any of the other Category:Hungarian-language surnames. I mean obviously the Széll one is being treated as a disambiguation page rather than an article, but I'm curious what is unique to the Széll page that makes it unfit for the same "full article" treatment as the other surnames? Is it because of the ship (the S.S. Szell Kalman)? -Thibbs (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to User:Thibbs) That page happened to be on my watchlist. The page is just a list of things (mostly, but not exclusively, people) with that name that are (or might one day be) notable enough to have a WP article - i.e. it's a dab page. If a page like Széll tries to pretend it's not a dab page then as some editors add more links (e.g. to a company called "Szell Inc." or to something that has no connection to the Hungarian surname) and other editors add (cited) information about the origin of the surname it becomes a right mess. If an article (with referenced material) can be written about the surname (e.g. like the Singh article, or even just a stub) then that should be separate to the dab page - using "(disambiguation)" or "(surname)" in one of the titles. DexDor (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words Szabó, Vajda, and the vast bulk of the articles at Category:Hungarian-language surnames are all in error then? Is there policy to support this or just editorial preference? From the look of the Széll page's history, it's only been considered a disambiguation page since you made it one last month. Prior to that it had existed for years as a normal (albeit very stubby) surname article without any of the mess you're worried about. I find it quite unlikely that a non-surname-related use for that word will be developed. Even the ship is actually named after a person. -Thibbs (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.

I'm a newbie, and I'm wise enough to say so, so pardon me if I'm doing things the "wrong" way or seem to be out of place. I'm trying to learn all I can and practice techniques in my own userspace before attempting to do things in the "real world" and inadvertently causing a big stir, as newbies are wont to do.  :-)

It seems like you were a recent contributor to WP:SPLIT a few months ago. So it seems to me like you may be an excellent person to have in the discussion we're having on how to properly split an article, and then properly updating WP:SPLIT to reflect what we've learned. I think I'm not the only one who's a bit confused about how the Template:Split to and Template:Split from templates are to be used and what the final result should look like.

I'm actually an old computer geek, myself, and pretty good at writing documentation, so I can certainly help there ... but where we're weak is understanding specifically what the template is calling for.

I've also invited contributors of the templates to our discussion, so we can have a full understanding and agreement on this, but have yet to hear back from any of them.

Thanks in advance for your help and comments!

Djdubay (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to User:Djdubay) I've made some changes at Wikipedia:Splitting#How_to_properly_split_an_article to make clear that the talk page templates (which seem, from the talk page discussion, to be the main difficulty) are optional; it's the edit summaries that are compulsory when splitting. Hope it helps. DexDor (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to your deletion nomination since the subcat and the award itself are the only members. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks. DexDor (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit on digital which links analogue electronics in the see also section with the explanation that "A dab page is for diff't meanings of a word/phrase - not for subjects related to one of the meanings." Why didn't you delete boolean algebra based on that same criteria? And where is the wikipedia policy rule that supports your reason for deleting? Oicumayberight (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:DAB. DexDor (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your links answer the question of why your criteria for deleting/keeping one does not apply to deleting/keeping other in this particular case. If you can't answer specifically, I understand. I will say no more. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, there are a number of reasons a category would help -

1. Sending a message to all users of a specific OS/family that they will be experiencing or have fixed a problem with Wikipedia.
2. Looking for someone else to duplicate a bug you may be having to see if it is (non-)OS specific.

Those are just immediately. In the future, I can see quite a few more. I'm just inputting that I wouldn't have necessarily wanted deletion. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've hacked out the puffery. But form the looks of it - it actually belongs under Alvis Stormer if anywhere as its a 6-wheel chassis. Still needs referencing of course.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you something briefly. Recently, you nominated Category:Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia for deletion, under the reason that it only has one article. But, User:Good Olfactory has added some other pages and categories to it, does it seem to you that the deletion process should continue, or to remove the deletion tag. Hope on getting a reply soon, kind regards, Blok Glo (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Done. DexDor (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you summarized the issues of award categories very well with you essay on the matter. People have now gone to attacking me on my talk page on the issue because I actually want to start enforcing the rules against most award cats. Oddly enough they do not seem to be motivated to weigh into the actual discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - When I came across this fabulous CFD I immediately thought of your essay on the Effects of IEP on Wikipedia, which I read and enjoyed(?) a couple of days ago. The same user created a very short article (don't miss it!), and 4 brand new categories to go along with it. At any rate, I guess that's actually better than making a messing out of an existing article! :) Cgingold (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DexDor,
I've been diving into categories over the summer (reading TermCat) and decided to take a breath and get to know other people working in the area. Although we work in different subject areas (right now I'm busy with actresses/male actors) I imagine some of the choices we face are similar. I signed up for WikiProject Categories but I'm not sure how active it is...maybe I'll run into you on their Talk Page.
Cheers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having an above-average quota. I assure you that it is appreciated. (OK: I assure you that I appreciate it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Once again, thanks for your good manners - they continue to be appreciated. In this case, I'm not altogether sure what's going on. But never-the-less, thanks for the notification. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pdfpdf, There's no need to thank me; Twinkle does the notification automatically. Feel free to ask any questions. If you're interested in where I'm coming from re awards categories see User:DexDor/AwardCat. DexDor (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to thank me; Twinkle does the notification automatically - Oh. And there I was thinking you have impeccable manners. Well ... thank you Twinkle. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in where I'm coming from re awards categories ... - Yes, I had read that. Yes, it helps explain your POV, but I find I don't completely agree with your POV. Never mind - I'm sure we will both manage. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed your CfD of Category:Blue Star Memorial Highways as 'procedural keep' as, when you 'split off' that category from the others, you didn't start the discussion on the current day's page, instead adding it to the bottom of the original CfD log - where many participants might not have been aware of the altered status of the discussion. You should, if you still think it should be deleted, promptly renominate it as part of the current day's discussions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll add it to my list of cats to br cfded when i get home. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Duras 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Marguerite Duras]] (1914–1996), pseudonym) of Marguerite Donnadieu, a French writer and film director

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is a famous landmark in Taipei , Please understand it .AINUCENTM5D (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death. Since you participated in a previous discussion about this category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought there was something wrong with categories like Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 6#Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic plurality populations, and your recent CFD nailed it. these need to be lists, as the locales will change their status over time, and we dont want categories to be ephemeral, with few exceptions, like Living People.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice work Carliitaeliza TALK 19:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jurat (clause), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wrightrealtors.com/home/jurat.htm.

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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I copied it from within WP (and said so in the edit summary). Isn't it more likely that the realtors copied it fom the Jurat article? DexDor (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your rationale for removing this article from Category:French medical phrases. It is consistent with the other articles in that category, and that category is consistent with other categories such as Category:Latin medical phrases and Category:French legal terms. One of the advantages of categories is that they allow us to tie topics together outside of a strict hierarchical taxonomy. Pburka (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pburka, In Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) articles should be catogorized by characteristics of their topic, not by characteristics of their title. So, for example, the terms coup d'état and putsch both refer to the same concept - the article about that concept shouldn't be categorized based on which term has been chosen for the article title. See also, for example, the template at Category:French words and phrases and the CFD for loanwords categories. It's incorrect to place this article (about a medical condition/symptom) below Category:Linguistics (and Category:France). DexDor (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly then, that your dispute is not the placement of this particular article in the category, but the existence of the category itself? If so, this should be taken up at WP:CFD. If not, can you explain how peau d'orange differs from, for example, forme fruste? Pburka (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka. CFD is appropriate where there is a problem with the category itself or where it's very clear (just from the titles of the articles in the category) that none of the articles should be in the category. Wikipedia does have some articles about words/phrases (L'Étoile du Nord, Liberté, égalité, fraternité and Manqué for example) where the word/phrase itself (rather than the concept it refers to) is (or may be) notable. W&p categories can also contain list articles (example) etc. So, if used correctly, a words&phrases category is OK - see for example the articles in Category:English words and phrases. By working through the articles in a category one-by-one I remove incorrect category tags and can also fix several related problems - in particular WP:REFER, WP:NAD (e.g. where one article covers separate topics with the same name), add appropriate topic-based category tags and add a Wiktionary link. The Forme fruste article does appear to be about a phrase (it isn't clear from the current lead sentence, but look at the History section etc) and may therefore be correctly categorized. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale for tacking "in English" onto the title of List of collective nouns? Does the English Wikipedia have lists of collective nouns in other languages? If so, why? If not, I see no possible source for the alleged confusion. Krychek (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krychek, The reason for the rename was to make the article title more accurately reflect the article topic (as described in the lead). Although this encyclopedia is written in the English language, when the subject of an article is language we shouldn't give English any special treatment. Also, if the article wasn't just about English it shouldn't be below Category:Lists of English words. DexDor (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the creator of the British PM's burial places category, and I do wish I'd been informed before the deletion discussion. Very good points were raised however, highlighting the lack of some churches and buildings. A similar category exists for US Presidents. Best wishes, Gareth E Kegg (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth. I used Twinkle to do the nomination for the PM's CFD so it should have informed the creator - unless the category had been renamed (I can't see the history now). If you had the category watchlisted the CFD tag edit would have appeared. There's still List of burial places of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Re Category:Burial sites of Presidents of the United States - that's not as bad as most/all of the articles are about cemeteries, tombs etc - not articles about towns etc. IMO that category should be deleted (possibly replaced by a category just for tombs), but that would be a separate CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DexDor, your edit (see above) is not correct! All are abbreviations! Please install my edit again. Thanks and greetings -- Werddemer (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Werddemer. Even if all the entries on a dab page are currently abbreviations (as may be the case at OPD) it's not necessary for the lead sentence of the dab page to say "FOO is an abbreviation ...". That statement may become incorrect/misleading as new entries that are not abbreviations are added. It may also encourage editors to make incorrect edits such as putting the dab page in Category:Abbreviations or rearranging the dab page into sections "FOO (abbreviation)", "Foo (contraction)" etc. Note that, for example, "BP" (when referring to BP plc) isn't (now) an abbreviation and some definitions of "abbreviation" exclude acronyms etc. The UPS page is an example where at least one of the current entries is not (AFAIK) an abbreviation. I hope that helps. DexDor (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DexDor, All Edits there are Abbreviations!!! I don't understand, why you changed again in "may refer to"...Your's is not correct! Greetings -- Werddemer (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werddemer - read my reply in the previous section! (also, which edit of mine are you referring to?) DexDor (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I saw some edits with the reference "abbreviation". Therefore I did the same, because I'm meaning, it's better for readers and more clearly. In the German Wikipedia you always find this references. Greetings -- Werddemer (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werddemer, if you edit the English language WP you should follow this wiki's MOS (when I'm in Germany, I try to remember to drive on the right...). It's generally unnecessary to actually read the details of the MOS if you just stick to the style of most existing dab pages (on THIS wiki) and take notice of any reverts etc. If you're trying to make enwiki dab pages have the same style as dewiki dab pages (one page at a time) then this isn't going to work as (1) your edits just get reverted by myself and other editors and (2) do you realise how many dab pages there are in enwiki ? Before you click on the "Save page" button please take a moment to put an explanation of the edit in the box marked "Edit summary" - and if you can't come up with a good reason (in terms of enwiki guidelines, not dewiki guideline) then you should ask yourself whether the edit really improves the encyclopedia. DexDor (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dexdor, the headline shows QT. Why have You changed as first in "Qt". You're meaning that's correct in the en Wikipedia too? I'm sorry, I can't understand your seeing rules. Greetings -- Werddemer (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werddemer, Re QT, one glance at the modified page[2] showed you had done your typical things trying to make the page fit the style of a dewiki dab page (e.g. inserting extra whitespace), rearranging things unnecessarily and generally not taking care (e.g. "refert") (without any explanation) so a revert was the best option. I don't understand your comment. 05:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 15.
Message added 12:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 21#Category:Locations_in_T.C3.A1in_B.C3.B3_C.C3.BAailnge.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DexDor (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 18#Category:Olympic_water_polo_venues.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. DexDor (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the CFD discussion of Category:Iron ore mining locations in Western Australia as "rename and purge" (renaming to Category:Iron ore mines in Western Australia).

A bot will do the renaming; would you be kind enough to do the purging? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:BrownHairedGirl. I've done the purge - I've left a few (e.g. this) in the mines cat (as well as the mining towns cat). P.S. Could you look at WP:LISTIFY from time to time and see if there are any that have been listified, but need to be emptied (WP:CFD/W?) before deletion. DexDor (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]