User talk:Didactohedron

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 07:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Boxen

Boxes seem to be working out nicely. Just a couple of comments:

CTHulhu; CHTHonic. ;)

Aquatic deities can now link to Greek sea gods; Primordial deities can now link to Greek primordial gods.

At some point, we may be carrot-and-sticked into making them bottom-center aligned rather than right aligned, as the Hinduism and Presocratics nav boxes are.

Heading should be "Gods of Greek mythology

In order to save as much space as we can for the "no clutter!" crowd, and to add a little more order, I'd suggest these headings for the first box:
- Beginnings
- Titans
- Olympians
- Chthonians (or Chthonic deities, whichever formats better)
- Sea-gods
- (leave out nymphs; include them in 'other')
- Deified Concepts
- Others

I'd like to minimize vertical space (as little word wrap as possible) and also horizontal space (as few long words as possible).

If we're going to do away with the core/sometimes-included distinction among the Olympians, we should remove Hades, since he's the most marginal.

Hero-cult should be included in Chthonic.

"Others" could include Pan, Nymphs - and maybe, if it fits naturally into a section on Heracles as god on the Heracles page, Heracles.

But mostly, nice job! Bacchiad 06:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gah! That was an embarassing spelling mistake. Can we add Cthulhu to the Greek pantheon and pretend it wasn't a mistake? Please?

Works for me! Bacchiad 18:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I considered shortening the heading names, though making them all into nouns makes some of them sound awkward ("Beginnings" especially). I think I'll leave them as they are for now, but I'll probably shorten them when it comes to implementing the entire three-tier system. I'm going to implement that in a more modular way, which will result in fewer templates but more inclusions in the actual articles. More up-front work that way, but it'll be easier to modify the tree once I'm done. Thanks for the input and the encouragement! -Didactohedron 06:44, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Ah! You're right about "beginnings" - sounds like a Hallmark card. My real suggestion was gonna be "First Gods". Bacchiad 07:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In spite of myself, I redid all of the section headings. The "cthonic" typo is now fixed, and nymphs are incorporated into "others". I also made it so that the top tier will always line up properly (previously it depended on the user's text size).

Incidentally, why might we be carrot-and-sticked into making the boxes bottom-aligned, and what sort of carrots and sticks might be used? -Didactohedron 07:49, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

For some reason way back in the day the first person who made templated navboxes decided they should be purple and bottom-center-aligned - and most of the subsequent ones have been that way. Then the zoologists who made custom taxoboxes for individual pages decided they should be upper-right-aligned. A few months ago, a few users made a custom myth taxobox at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Mythology that's upper-right- or left-aligned. Personally, I think don't like the aesthetics, not to mention it requires pasting most what's already in the article into a hard-to-edit table. So one of two things might happen:

Someone decides that the Greek myth navbox should like like most of the other ones.
Someone decides to implement the myth taxobox and the navbox gets in the way.

Carrot-and-sticks would include anything from talk-page lobbying to just doing it themselves. I don't know how likely that is, but it's possible. Hell, anything's possible on wiki. ;) Bacchiad 18:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

French Revolution

I'm going to try to put this as temperately as I can: you recently unilaterally and radically refactored an area in which you have not previously made any significant contributions (and on which I've put in a good 300-400 hours in the last six months).

You did this without any prior discussion on any of the relevant talk pages: I'm pretty sure of that because I have pretty much everything relevant on my watchlist. Since you don't seem to have explained yourself on talk pages even after the fact, I have no immediate idea of the merits of what you've done, but I can tell you that the way you've done it, if I and others who have been active in the area were to decide it was detrimental it would be sheer hell to undo. This seems to me to have been a rather inappropriate way to go about a radical restructuring.

I have at least one serious problem with what you have done: I do not think it is appropriate to turn articles on governing bodies into articles on all events during the period of their reign. You did this in a way that gave me no opportunity to raise this objection in a timely manner, nor to try to determine consensus on the matter.

Also, I'm nearly certain that you've broken a lot of links that went to sections of articles. Do you plan to track those down and fix them, or are you leaving that to other people?

Offhand, I don't know your past work on Wikipedia; as far as I know, our areas of work have not overlapped in the past. At the very least, can you assure me that you have not (for example) entirely removed large pieces of content in doing this? There is no sane way for me to verify this. -- Jmabel 00:07, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are taking on the relinking and that you aren't deleting chunks... and, no, that doesn't go without saying: I've encountered some restructures that seem to have been motivated more by political concerns than encyclopedic ones and, as I said, I don't know your work.

Yes, I am very familiar with the "What links here" feature. I had already factored out 10th of August (French Revolution) precisely becuase we had about 15 links to a single section of a history article. I did a fee other similar refactorings; I couldn't give you a list offhand. I don't think there is anything else equal to August 10, but last I checked (about 2 months ago) most links into these history articles were links to sections, not to the whole articles.

Anyway, best of luck, and I guess I can just hope I like the result. I'm sure you can imaginethat I was startled to check my watchlist and see that a single individual of whom I know nothing was radically restructuring the area in which I do about half of my wikipedia work, and where there have normally been only about 3 or 4 other people active. -- Jmabel 00:51, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've been more or less watching what you are doing. Looks really good. My initial concern was because I've seen a lot of people make half-assed attempts at this sort of thing, and I'm sure you can imagine how damaging it can be. The lack of a heads-up really had me worried.

As long as people can start from French Revolution and then drill down where they want more detail, and as long as we don't propagate too many stubs, more granularity is good. -- Jmabel 18:48, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused. You seem to have parcelled out a lot of information from the articles I had been working on, but left those articles more or less intact? Is this information now all in two places? Before I plunge back into working in this area, I need to understand how it is now arranged. Should the "French Revolution From...To..." articles now go away? Is all of their content now duplicated elsewhere? -- Jmabel 00:29, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I see you haven't been editing lately but please if you get a chance, communicate with me on this. You have radically restructured one of my three or four main areas of workon this project, setting up a different scheme than I had planned. I can't work out the rationale of some of it: in particular, I can't work out which articles should be maintained and which should be reduced to redirects, and I'm afraid to edit without consulting you. I do have other topics to work on, but by making such large changes and then not being around to discuss them you have (inadvertantly) prevented my from doing my main line of work. -- Jmabel 06:22, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Geronimo

Wikipedia policy is to name articles with the most commonly used English language name. Therefore Geronimo should be at Geronimo, just as William Jefferson Blythe is at Bill Clinton. Rick K 07:45, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

No, the policy is aimed at everything, not just people, and not just nicknames. Rick K 08:01, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

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

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

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

Hindu scripture

Hi -- I feel that the Hindu scripture template is slightly gratuitous, and I suggest it will be enough to include it below articles, similar to Template:Hinduism, rather than taking the place of images at the top of articles. Also, you may want to reconsider which individual texts you list (if you want to list individual Puranas etc., the list may become quite long). Also, you may want to reconsider marking 'shruti' status of the texts; the Mahabharata is not considered shruti. The Bhagavad Gita is considered shruti by some, but by no means universally. This situation may be too complicated to express in a simple table. C.f. also my additions on the template's talk page. "Scripture" may also be slightly incorrect, seeing that the texts are mostly transmitted orally. It may be better to make two separate templates, one shruti and one smrti (MBh would appear on smrti, and BG e.g. in brackets on shruti). regards, dab (ᛏ) 14:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

History of the administrative division of Russia

Just wanted to drop a quick thank-you note acknowledging the work you've done on the History of the administrative division of Russia article. Wow! It's like you were reading my mind and composed exactly what was supposed to go on this page! I especially like the nifty little image-table—very illustrative and to the point. Thanks again!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to your note on my talk page:

English is fine. Yes, I do have plans to continue the series. The reason I stopped was that I was not able to find any meaningful information on the subject for most of the rest of 18th (after 1763) and for the first half of the 19th centuries. After much painful research I finally am close, but I will still need to devote time to put everything in order and to re-check the facts. I am not using any single source to compile the series; most of the information comes from various odd sources like old geography books, Russian federal subjects' websites, reference materials, and, of course, Google and its little pal Yandex. Very often the sources contradict each other, and none of them has all of the information in full. In fact, despite all my work I still am not 100% sure that information already in the articles is completely correct.

It should be very easy to compile the articles on the 20th century though, because the closer it is to modern times, the easier it is to find good sources, and I have plenty of very good materials already.

It is very unlikely I will continue the series in the other direction, however. Whatever I was able to find on the administrative structure prior to 1708 is extremely incomplete and contradictory. It's probably possible to gather this information from good Russian libraries, but I do not have access to those (I live in the US). So, basically, I am looking at 1708-2005 span for now. I may change my mind in future when this project is complete, but it's hard to tell this far in advance.

In any case, if you want to research this subject as well, you are very welcome to join. If you live in Russia, you can find plenty of materials I probably don't even know exist. This is a humongous project (I did not realize what I was getting into when I started; which is also true of any other project I started so far :)), and whatever help you can render would be invaluable.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:11, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

poll

Poll (Macedonian Slav or Macedonian) I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies. There is a poll in the talk page of the 'Macedonian Slavs' article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonians without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people that _possibly_ share or represent a different point of view. Your contributions to the discussion and the poll are welcomed.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frmaximos"

Gallery articles up for deletion!

I noticed that these articles:

that you worked on in the past are now are up for deletion. Would you vote in favor of keeping these articles? They show the history of the advancement of video game graphics over time and are useful as a source of images for graphics for video game articles. --ShaunMacPherson 20:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A "Spirituality" portal

HI Didactohedron,

Some editors have been discussing the possibility of creating a “Spirituality” portal. What do you think of the idea? — Richard_RDF^talk 14:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I entered some basics to get the ball rolling. I look forward to your participation in the Spirituality WikiProject and reading your contributions to the Spirituality portal. :-) — Richard_RDF^talk 00:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Spirituality

Template:Spirituality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Spirituality. Thank you. — Richard_RDF^talk 17:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bougereau Gallery

You have edited the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery. It has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The deletion discussion is here. A proposal to modify the policy is here. Please join either or both discussions and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

See: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14# Orthodox Christian categories. IZAK 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:1988-09.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1988-09.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Greek myth (primordial-concept)

A tag has been placed on Template:Greek myth (primordial-concept) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Greek myth (aquatic titan)

Template:Greek myth (aquatic titan) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Greek myth (chthonic olympian)

Template:Greek myth (chthonic olympian) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Greek myth (titan-concept)

Template:Greek myth (titan-concept) has been nominated for merging with Template:Greek myth (Titan) sidebar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Greek myth (primordial-cthonic)

Template:Greek myth (primordial-cthonic) has been nominated for merging with Template:Greek myth (primordial-cthonic). You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Greek myth (primordial)

Template:Greek myth (primordial) has been nominated for merging with Template:Greek myth (primordial-cthonic) sidebar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Russian guberniyas, 1708-1726.png

The file File:Russian guberniyas, 1708-1726.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, superseded by Template:Governorates of the Russian Empire.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Greek myth (other gods)

Template:Greek myth (other gods) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Michael Aurel (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]