If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.
By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist ...
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry ... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.

Put new comments below
Past discussion can be seen through the History page

Responses

So Long, and Thanks for all the comments

[replies here; sniping addressed ones; user responding to - comments; most "quoted" comments are in italics]

New criticism, comments, and feedback

From time to time I'll respond here and delete the old content; I'll leave them for a few weeks ('mostly' ... but I do just clear them at time; see history if you want the archive). J. D. Redding 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit appears to contain some copyvio

[1] --

"Despite numerous historical precedents for unannounced military action, the lack of any formal warning by Japan, particularly while negotiations were still apparently ongoing, led to President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaiming December 7, 1941, "a date which will live in infamy"

which appears to come from [2]. Comments? Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm you have that backwards. That page is copying a page on wikipedia. Attack on Pearl Harbor.

I did though forget to edit the summary here about importing the text into the maritime article. Thanks. --J. D. Redding 08:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's odd, as I did a time limited search on Google and the Pearl Harbor article didn't come up, but you're absolutely right. Good wording, whoever did it. Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of An Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to the Theories of Electricity and Magnetism for deletion

The article An Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to the Theories of Electricity and Magnetism is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to the Theories of Electricity and Magnetism 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. Minima c (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:KCKS-UG-LOGO.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KCKS-UG-LOGO.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Courcelles 05:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a suitable explanation or rational there. --J. D. Redding 06:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Non-free use rationale}} template. you should mention that in these posts. --J. D. Redding 20:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not Plagiarism, public domain

Some of your recent contributions to John Stone Stone appear to be direct copying of the source text. Please do not do that. Also John S. Stone was not the president of the AIEEE in 1915 as can be seen here. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about public domain. Thanks. J. D. Redding 23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is beside the point that the material is public domain. Direct copying is still plagiarism. It should have at least been made clear to the reader that it is direct quotations from the source. In any case, the material is inaccurate, Stone was not president, and most of the rest is largely trivial or irrelevant, going on about the papers Armstrong presented is off-topic for an article about Stone, and it is not particularly in an encyclopaedic style. SpinningSpark 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. plagiarism is something different! Works are in the public domain are not covered by intellectual property rights at all. There is no "wrongful appropriation" here. They are "publicly available". ... anyways, stone was the Stone was the president of the IRE, sorry about the AIEE [the two were merged after that time] ... and it's kinda important that stone talked about the papers Armstrong. --J. D. Redding 00:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The legality of it has nothing to do with the definition of plagiarism. It is misleading to the reader, and generally accepted as poor etiquette, to present the work of others as the work of Wikipedia editors. In any case it needs a serious copyedit to reduce it to encyclopaedic facts. SpinningSpark 00:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ... you are wrong. It was not how Wikipedia started (most of the information in the beginning was imported via bots of PD info ... do you know about WP history?). Anyways, it's not how the world works. There is no "wrongful appropriation" when they are "publicly available". Please try to understand the concept of public domain. Thanks. ... and please copy-edit things, but don't remove the information. Sinceerely, --J. D. Redding 00:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments about plagiarism aside, please note that it is almost never appropriate to directly copy another source into Wikipedia because inevitably the style is wrong. Unless the other source is an encyclopedia or a similar reference work, the writing style, tone, person, etc. will be all wrong. Even if the source is an encyclopedia, it will generally not conform to our Manual of Style. For this reason if no other most external source material must be rewritten/paraphrased for Wikipedia regardless of its copyright status.--Srleffler (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV on that ... but duly noted. --J. D. Redding 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding plagiarism of the public domain, I think Spinning Spark is thinking of the standards expected in academic writing. In an academic context it is certainly possible to plagiarize a public domain work. In academic writing, one is expected to be up front about one's sources, and to present only one's own writing as one's own work. It is irrelevant that one is legally permitted to copy public domain material; in academic writing all externally sourced material must be identified as such, and failing to do so is considered a serious violation of academic ethics. I'm not sure to what extent this standard applies to Wikipedia. This is not an academic journal or classroom, and our goals are different. The source for imported material should still be identified somewhere, though, since readers may wish to consult the original source. It's also polite to identify the original source and author even when there is no legal requirement to do so.--Srleffler (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, YMMV on your view of PD material and academic writing ... but I generally agree ...

Anyways, I do almost always provide a note [and, usually, a link] to the original source. As you said, this is not academia, not an academic journal, nor a classroom, ... and Wikipedia's goals are different. There is no legal requirement to do the 'ref note' and 'ext link', but it is nice ... and I usually do try to do this for the reader/audience. --J. D. Redding 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Hi Reddi,,

I really love the black and white photo of the sahara from 1908 that you submitted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saraha-1908.png

I am researching the picture, but i can't find it in any of the World's Work issues online. Do you know who the photographer was? Where did you get the pic from? did you scan it in? I'd love to know which issue it was in.

Also,,, as you can see from the above link,,, the spelling of the word Sahara is wrong. Sorry to point this out.

kind regards --Jbmc74 (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's by Charles W. Furlong, "American Artist the Sahara". --J. D. Redding 06:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of William Wulf

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on William Wulf 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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. BigDwiki (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Timeline

Hi Reddi i can see u have done a lot of good work, and now i ask u, what about the European Timeline in the Bronze age articel, the European Timeline starts withs the Corded Ware? we need to get the Greek Aegean Bronze age on the timeline it started 3200 BC, i hope we can get it on, it belongs there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.94.162 (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Aegean Bronze Age? It's in the Bronze age, but not in the timeline of the B.A. Article. If one can't do it, I'll see if I can get it in there. --J. D. Redding 01:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ankt

Hello. You added some content to the stub article Ankt (years ago, I know), and I was wondering where you got the information. The article is unsourced, and I haven't been able to confirm the existence of such a deity in any of my Egyptological sources. I'm concerned that the article may be wrong. The other people who made any significant contribution to the article seem to be gone from WP, so I didn't know who else to ask. A. Parrot (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was right after I started contributing, 2003. Long time ago [is that eons in iTime? =-]. Don't remember. I'd look up some Public domain encyclopedias ... but I couldn't tell you for sure. I'll look around for ya, if ya want. --J. D. Redding 03:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be Ank or Ankt (Anouke). link and link ... g.search anouke ... hope this helps ya ... --J. D. Redding 03:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC) ps., Dictionary of Ancient Deities By Patricia Turner, Charles Russell Coulter seems to cite it, but it's a new book [2001], so it could be a source ... pps. could be related to Anuket (match the Name in hieroglyphs with this).[reply]

Rome and the Iron age

Hello, and thank you for your responses, which I caught en route to bed. Sorry you're frustrated but the sheer vagueness of the term is problematic; that said, you've identified something well worth discussion. I won't be editing again until Monday but will reply at the first opportunity. Best. Haploidavey (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? So just wait till monday? Not good. And there is not vagueness to the term. --J. D. Redding 00:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

template box

sorry for not notifying you earliar, but many users have complained about the black colour scheme used in the campaigns of muhammad template box here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad

so i had to revert the black (you may need to clear your cache before you can see it)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atilla the huns empire map is wrong in the Atilla article

Hi

U are very good in wikipedia and now i can se thats in the Atilla article there is a old wrong map of the Empire, its shows Danmark and Angel and Saxony in germany as part of it, but all that knows history will know that these part were newer a part of Hun empire, the maps we use in the articles Huns and Hunnic empire shows the real area the empire had control of. i hope u will change the wrong map in the Atilla article. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.108.76 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

During July you requested a review here. I have looked at what you have been doing and am impressed by your contributions to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 26 August 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Reddi! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A Proposal

You can click here to view my proposal on the future of WikiProject History. I have been notifying related WikiProjects and involved editors of this proposal, which is aimed at re-energizing the Project. I believe that you are still a Project Coordinator, so I'm curious to know what your opinion is on these matters. DCItalk 01:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:1748435-CrystalRadio.png

Thanks for uploading File:1748435-CrystalRadio.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Government warehouse (fiction)

The article Government warehouse (fiction) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence presented through reliable sources that this is a distinct subject: not every common plot element requires an encyclopedia article

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City: Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m. — National Archives in Kansas City

This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons.

Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!

And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere:

Wichita: Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park

Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge!

St. Louis: Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center

Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!

Message delivered by Dominic·t 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination of Government warehouse (fiction) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Government warehouse (fiction) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government warehouse (fiction) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Griffin118x81Px.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Griffin118x81Px.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'authentic' Einstein quotation

Hi Reddi: On my Talk page you have written under "Creativity (1904-1905)"

Just remember, "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." =-]

Presumably this is supposed to be a quotation from Einstein. I note you give no reference citation, which is not surprising since there is no evidence that Einstein ever said this. It is one of numerous "quotations" attributed to Einstein for which no original source has ever been traced.[[3]] Esterson (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's widely known. And I have known the quote since my childhood. Einstein was my childhood hero. --J. D. Redding 10:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:US6281.png

Thank you for uploading File:US6281.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of UnQL for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UnQL 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnQL until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You put in another tag ... it was 'Proposed deletion/'

As seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UnQL&oldid=510526987

"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason."

now it's 'Article for deletion'. --J. D. Redding 04:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Teleforce

An article that you have been involved in editing, Teleforce , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Kansas

Hi there, writing to you because you are a member of the wikiproject kansas. created a GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) group for kansas, mailing list for topeka and a facebook page linked from here Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka. would like to organize some more meetups at different historic sites in topeka (and even other places if we can find someone with a car), go there and take photos, collect information and work on the articles. It could be a great group event. please let me know what you think, and sign up on the mailing list if you like. Also if you know of GLAM sites anywhere in kansas, please add them to the list. Also I would like to organize a photo contest for Kansas. you can send me a mail if you like as well, my mail is on my user page.

thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dr. Nikola Tesla Bibliography

The article Dr. Nikola Tesla Bibliography has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I was unable to find any independent sources with any more than a trivial mention of this book.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning-prediction system AfD Discussion

Just letting you know of this as you were the primary & initial author of the page. Maybe you would like to move any valid, impartial information over to the lightning detector article which appears to be covering it all in good detail without using a single product as its evidence of notability or give any undue promotion to any single product. Borealdreams (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediate

As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination)[4]. For an entity such as this who has gained global noterity to even be considered for deletion is beyond my understanding.Kmt885 (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Atmospheric electricity 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

assessing articles

Hi. I recently joined WP:WikiProject History. I'd appreciate your guidance on assessing articles. I think I can manage on the unassessed articles to determine Stub, Start, C, or B. I'd like to participate in assessing for A class, as well. Any guidance you have would help. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. The page you are looking for is to aim for Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The borrowed generalities are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_History/Review/A-class_review. If you have a specific article, I'd be happy to discuss it. --J. D. Redding 13:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Poverty pimp

The article Poverty pimp has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Badly sourced, seems more like a slang dictionary definition than an encyclopedic entry. As such, it belongs, if at all, at Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 02:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

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.

Maritime history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Falcon Lake

Pax Americana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Superpowers

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Reddi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interwar period, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paris Peace Conference (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) 11:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome

Hi Reddi, looking at this edit I wonder if the wording could be clearer. At the moment it looks to me like it is saying military posts were built in close proximity to markets, which to me implies the market pre-dated the town. Is that what is meant? Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If ya look at the reference, that is not what is ment. Armies attract traders, not the other way around. I'll try to make that explicit. --J. D. Redding 22:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the source before coming here, that's what I thought but I wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding your edit. Nev1 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 750s BC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charops (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) 11:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

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.

Postclassical Era (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dark Ages and Modern times

Solonian Constitution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pisistratus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest writing system

There have always been plenty of authors at any time who try to push the estimated date of cuneiform writing in Mesopotamia way earlier than there are records for. However, the truth is, there is no single such artifact that can be pointed to, to compare with the antiquity of the Narmer Palette ca. 3100 BC, that is the earliest documented use of hieroglyphic writing. The earliest bricks that say "Enmebaragesi" are ca. 500 years later. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that I am trying to do is provide the documentation for the inforamtion. Cite works and improve the condition of article. Personally, think it was concurrent dev [with Egypt having an edge] ... or developed by an unknown third party. Think historically that they gave the edge to Sumer.

References do and can vary ... but is what is required. Trying to find the best scholarly works and add them. --J. D. Redding 17:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there are no end of sourceable claims by authors, do let me know if you ever find an actual tangible artifact with cuneiform writing anywhere near as old as the Narmer Palette. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be bad to make explicit ... but give the historical scholarship too. --J. D. Redding 18:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cited a source from 1906 for the date 3500 BC... heck, in 1906 they thought Sargon of Akkad was before 3000 BC... how about more recent work from CDLIwiki? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. And make the 1906 explicit ... like "in 1906 they thought it was 5500 years old (3500 BC)" ...

And I added the CDLIwiki to the history of writing external links --J. D. Redding 18:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ancient maritime history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belugas (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) 11:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For spending a solid 7.5 days (so far) on History of mathematical notation with a sustained average of 12 minutes, 17 seconds between revisions. Why anyone would do that to themselves is beyond me, but good on you for doing so, I suppose. Your efforts will surely be rewarded with a FA. Now take a nap. Dea db eef 08:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i guess. The rough history is in place, but it is rough (some date-ical [sp?] info is there and a conceptual framework in place). More nuance of detail is needed and there are missing people/notation/equations that need to be included. Be nice to included it comprehensively there ... but, alternatively, in split up articles. I favor the prior than the latter. --J. D. Redding 15:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ponderomotive force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nabla (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) 23:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

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.

Energy development (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mercury, Quadrillion, Fuel economy and SSTAR

Emerging technologies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cultivation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Personal identity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atonement (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, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jean Charles Athanase Peltier 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:

publishing Company, limited, 1900. [http://books.google.com/books?id=251HAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA341 p341] (ed., also Gebbie, 1902 version, [http://books.google.com/books?id=z9FZprCIO-4C&pg=PA341 p341]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Hi -- most of the editing you are doing is valuable, but in a few cases you are making things into links that really shouldn't be. Links are distracting to a reader, so they should only be used if there is a significant probability that the reader will actually click on them. See WP:OVERLINK. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Advertising slogan, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WPM

Hello, you have been mentioned in a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted the text you posted at Talk:Functional notation. I do not feel that this text was appropriate at that discussion page, nor was my reply, so I am replying to you here.

This edit need to be rolled back 17:22, 30 August 2013‎ Wcherowi (contribs)‎ ... should also be re-merged into Functional (mathematics) reversing User:Slawekb (sockpuppet, User:Sławomir Biały) disruptive split off [seems to editing to prove a point] ... and redirected there.
Text is from 1875 and is in the public domain (but, for the reader put in the citation links). It is also not a copy and paste, as I had to reformat it with math tags, also. --J. D. Redding 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
[PS. does look like I have a fan club [via User:Slawekb (contribs) stalking my edits] with the talk pages of User_talk:Sławomir_Biały#Functional_notation and User_talk:Wcherowi#Functional_notation --J. D. Redding 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)]

I'm intrigued: how exactly was it disruptive to move this content out of an article that was about functions from a vector space to its ground field (the usual meaning of functional in mathematics)? The definition of "functional notation" is completely unrelated to that article. This very issue was remarked on at WT:WPM by User:David Eppstein.

Also, I'm more than prepared to answer to any charge of "stalking" that you care to propose. I've contributed in the past to the articles Conservative vector field and (quite substantially) to Helmholtz decomposition. I didn't even know it was your edit to functional (mathematics) until after the copyright notice was placed by Wcherowi on my talk page. I had visited this article only because a different editor had placed an inappropriate disambiguation hatnote to the function (mathematics) article, mentioning functional (mathematics) as a disambiguation target. Finding the latter article a ruin, I moved irrelevant material out to a separate article and did similar housekeeping at the related article operator (mathematics), which was also linked through an inappropriate hatnote. It was only because your dubious edits happened to appear quite numerously in articles that I have previously had an interest in that I even became aware of the extent of your disruption to the project.

Ultimately, of course, I did click to check your contributions, but they are too numerous and frequent for me to make any kind of meaningful WP:BLAME out of it. I can only respond to things which have appeared on my own radar, and I'm willing to be convinced that these were innocent errors, although the above quote does not especially lend credence to this hypothesis. So it seems very likely to me that there's a lot of other stuff you have to answer for. It would clearly be more helpful to the project if you would come clean:

What articles have you added references to without systematically examining those references?
What articles have you plagiarized content to, without providing in-text attribution? (Obviously this is not the same thing as a copyright violation in the sense of WP:CVIO, but it is still a violation of our guidelines, not to mention a basic violation of scholastic ethics.)
What articles have you edited without understanding the contents of those articles (e.g., functional (mathematics) would appear to be one).

—Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to avoid conflict with you ... and avoid articles that you are involved in. Seem that you have a vendete, which doesn't seem surprising from my initial interaction with you.

The content I provide mainly originates from free sources (public domain). There is no plagiarized; you are just wrong. Also, I do take offense of such slanderous allegation.

I also provide plenty of citations (with a link to the original article, book or site); Giving intext, incite, integrity ... so you are wrong there, too

Functional (mathematics) should contain the functional notation.

Now, I will again state I am trying to avoid conflict with you; Due to your comments to me and actions (and still seen in this present disrespectful comments [eg., understanding]).

One can edit to prove their point, but Wikipedia suffers [but that is not new and sadly has been for some time] ... it is depressing, to me atleast, those article will be put back in their weaker state.

--J. D. Redding 01:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we're having some communication problems: perhaps both with English as a primary language, and culturally with the idea of copying from a non-copyright source. Plagiarism is not acceptable, whatever the copyright status of the source. This is the usual convention in most of the western world—although notably not so much in parts of Asia, where copying is considered to be a form of reverence. The English Wikipedia, which adheres to the western perspective, is quite clear on this matter (per WP:PLAGIARISM). Even if you copy from a non-copyright source, you are still expected to provided full in-text attribution. If it's a word-for-word copy, it must be in quotation marks. If it's a paraphrase, it should be in the form "According to W.V.D. Hodge and D. Pedoe ...." Hopefully now you understand my concern on the plagiarism issue, and I would like you to announce any articles that you might have committed a similar infraction.

Items 1 and 3 above are, to me, perhaps more important to ensure reliable contributions, which your recent edits to mathematics-related articles have cast in serious doubt. Have you edited any articles where you didn't understand the context or the content of what you added? Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of originates from a free source that you do not understand? There is no plagiarism. There is no copyright violation. Period. There is no moral obligation nor ethical expectation to do as you state for public domain material.

Now, I do provide links to original works (eg., acknowledging the source) for the reader/audience, even of PD material; But this is a courtesy to the reader, not of some other issue. Copyright-expired, or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcomed on Wikipedia. As to the guideline [not a core policy] is that the material is attributed. I do this many times in the form of a reference citation (as stated before), but the guideline is not a policy [understand the difference]. Anyways ...

I do try to my utmost follow the rules of open-source, CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, and public domain; and try to use PD material [something that is at the core basis of Wikipedia, Bots use to transfer material verbatim of PD sources in the beginning of Wikipedia].

Lastly, your continued disrespectful comments (sic. "with English") seem to me as trolling; so we are done here unless you want to be more respectful and constructive. --J. D. Redding 02:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but as English is not my first language, I sometimes have trouble with various colloquialisms, and I hope that you forgive if my ignorance of the nuances of your beautiful language come across as "trolling". The intent of my comment was to reflect on my own poor command of the idioms of English, and the subtleties of its opulent grammar, rather than to denigrate your own command of the vernacular. While you could argue that "there is no moral obligation nor ethical expectation to do as you state for public domain material", indeed this is not so in many countries where I have worked as a professional writer and academic, including Poland, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States, and (briefly) Australia.

In spite of this, I am willing to accept for the purposes of argument, presumptively based on your assurances to this effect, the notion that in the complement of these nations, it is perfectly morally acceptable to copy the exact words of others without explicitly indicating, through the use of quotation marks or other such unambiguous device, who originally wrote those words. However, morality aside, it actually is a Wikipedia content guideline that we should not copy directly from sources without the use of quotation marks, and nor should we closely paraphrase sources without in-text attribution.

When it comes to public domain sources, obviously you can plagiarize to your heart's content on your personal website, Facebook, etc. But when you're writing a term paper, publishing a paper, or, for that matter, writing an encyclopedia, there are clear rules about attribution that need to be followed.

Also, I hope you realize that CC-BY-SA is not the same as public domain. It's actually illegal to copy CC-BY-SA material without explicit attribution (in jurisdictions that recognize the license). Special templates are for CC-BY-SA import of content into Wikipedia, indicating that such content was incorporated into the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is trolling.

You cannot plagiarize on a personal website, Facebook, etc. [aka., using intellectual property works in these settings verbatim] ... Such statement that one can do this (legally, ethically, and/or morally) is idiocy. To believe that one can, calls into serious doubt your capabilities of understanding the relevant concepts.

You apparently do not, or will not, understand Public Domain and there is no plagiarism with public domain material. The intellectual property rights have been forfeited and/or have expired and/or are inapplicable!

Maybe you have a misunderstanding of "public material" (that which is not 'public domain' and only publicly available) and "public domain material". There is a difference. I try to use 'public domain' material; material published before 1923 anywhere in the world.

CC-BY-SA is not the same as public domain, that is why I mention it; and do try to follow that license. I'll review my edits and make sure cited any internal Wikipedia material properly, as that is the only CC-BY-SA material that would have been used. "Copying content (including text, images, and citations) from one Wikipedia article to another or from one language Wikipedia to another is not plagiarism", as per wp:plag.

Please refrain from further interacting with me, unless absolutely necessary. --J. D. Redding

Plagiarism and copyright are not the same thing. See the guideline WP:PLAGIARISM for how to import public domain material without plagiarizing it. Proper attribution must be given. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot plagiarize public domain material. Nonsense.--J. D. Redding 13:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a serious misconception that needs to be corrected. Any academic caught copying the work of others as their own would be subject to sanctions for plagiarism, regardless of the copyright status of the work. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for any purpose." (Wikipedia:Public domain)

I do provide attribution via a citation to comply with relevant policies; but not because of any notion of a plagiarism guideline (Guidelines are only suggestions), but do so for [the real policy of] no original research.

Wikipedia is not academia nor a classroom. You are not a professor here grading papers. If I was writing an academic paper or for academia, I would construct and use the material differently. It's really that simple.

Anyways, one cannot plagiarize public domain material. It's saying one is plagiarizing "1+1=2" without a citations. Nonsense. --J. D. Redding 14:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have successfully read the first sentence of the WP:PD policy. Do you not comprehend the second sentence of that policy? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A browse through your edit history shows that in fact you quite routinely internally copy CC-BY-SA content without any attribution. This is not only a violation of the license, but a serious breach of editorial trust. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And something for which we've blocked editors in the past who wouldn't stop. Some diffs would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit includes text from social sciences and history of the social sciences. This edit includes material from somewhere else ([5] here it appears in a column from 2011, though I won't rule out the possibility that this is a Wikipedia mirror). This edit includes material from private spaceflight and commercialization of space. This edit includes content from political party. This edit includes content from linear algebra. This edit includes content from Euclid's elements. This edit includes material from History of electromagnetic theory. These are just examples from the past few weeks (!), but I suspect even more from that time period alone. (And this is excluding edits like this and [6] that copy public domain sources without attribution—I leave aside the question of whether it is wise to cite as authoritative a source from 1922 on the use of advertising slogans for social control.)

I have noticed that some edits more closely grammatically resemble Reddi's semiliterate posts on this page (broken English, poor grammar, etc.), possibly indicating original authorship. Most of the rest seems to have been copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia or from a public domain source, in all cases without appropriate attribution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia

Here's what the template says: While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Reddi, this isn't optional. And it would show good faith to at least go back and add the template to the articles mentioned above. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance: Middle Ages

This is a note to let the main editors of Middle Ages know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 12, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 12, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Middle Ages of European history lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. It began with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and barbarian invaders formed new kingdoms. The Franks, under the Carolingian dynasty, established an empire covering much of Western Europe; the Carolingian Empire endured until the 9th century. During the High Middle Ages, which began after AD 1000, the population of Europe increased as technological and agricultural innovations allowed trade to flourish and crop yields to increase. Western European Christians attempted to regain control of the Holy Land in the Crusades. Intellectual life was marked by scholasticism and the founding of universities. The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, the paintings of Giotto, the poetry of Dante and Chaucer, the travels of Marco Polo, and the architecture of Gothic cathedrals are among the outstanding achievements of this period. The Late Middle Ages was marked by famine, plague, and war; between 1347 and 1350, the Black Death killed about a third of Europeans. Cultural and technological developments transformed European society, leading to the early modern period. (Full article...)

Images used in this blurb:

This list of images only shows on this subpage and will not show up on the main page, for example. DO NOT remove the "noinclude" tags!

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox historical event

Template:Infobox historical event has been nominated for merging with [[Template:Template:Infobox news event]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

Akhenaten, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]