Welcdome to Wikipedia! I think the articles you wrote were really good. I made a couple of little tweaks, but your English is fine. I will be happy, when I am around, to keep doing the tweaks to such good work. Danny

  Thanks! *being happy because of the compliments* --denny 19:11 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the "issue" over longest serving Popes. I put a calculation for the current Pope in the talk page... should fend off future confusion. Pakaran 01:46, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not a problem, no appology needed. -- Pakaran 15:08, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Danny, for your info:

Erik Zachte tried it before with much more detailed statistics, but, pitily, they weren't updated sind September 2003.

There were updated! A week ago stats for Jan 20, 2004 were available. Since the most recent server switch old stats reappeared. When all new servers are set up the stats will be refreshed again, weekly or so. Right now I don't want to bother Brion Vibber (the site admin), he has enough to do right now. Cheers, Erik Zachte 17:58, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your message. I will be busy next week. See you later. --Youssef 15:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

---

You're welcome, Denny. Thank you for your kind words about my updating the multilingual statistics! I decided to do it this time in order to get some practice with tables, something I find rather difficult. I'm really glad to have made your work a little easier for this week. Thanks again for popping in to see me :-) Davidcannon 13:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Denny! I noticed that you have made a lot of terrific contributions to articles about philosophy. I'm trying to organize those of us who are philosophically inclined over on WikiProject Philosophy, in the hopes of sprucing up the philosophy pages around here, and I'd like to invite you to join us. If you're interested, drop on in -- there's no obligation, I'm just trying to form a nexus and central meeting point for philosophically-minded 'pedians. Thanks, and good luck! — Adam Conover † 20:41, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've for long (a year, actually) been itched by the way Wikipedia-links are done with often sloppy distinctions between nationality, citizenship and ethnicity (with regard to persons) and also between nations and countries. This is particularly obvious in the case of people or entities that are denoted as German. A link to the Federal Republic of Germany is often outright unhistorical and wrong, but this has until now been the most usual.

Therefore I'm considering an article on Germans, which I've started at User:Ruhrjung/Germans. I would wish to avoid lots of edit wars. In particular, I would not wish to see the current disputes over German-Polish matters automatically extend also to this article, why I kindly ask you for comments now, in advance, in order to try to find wordings acceptable to as many as possible of concerned wikipedians.

(I hope it's unnecessary to point out that people of non-German descent who are living in Germany probably can see many things clearer than Germans themselves.=

I look forward to your comments at User talk:Ruhrjung/Germans.
--Ruhrjung 23:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Denny, your RANKINGS table shows a HUGE improvement! Not only is it packed with much more useful information than before, it also looks much better. You've done a magnificent job. David Cannon 11:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

thanks. --denny vrandečić 14:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Denny, in next ed. of your ranking en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_ranking_November_2004 be carefull, you and David omit frisian wiki, and record wrong no. of artls for welsch wiki - David now correct his table. I find this case when transform jour table - that is at all the good work - to our local polish edition of month ranking. Cheers Ency 09:27, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

corrected. --denny vrandečić 14:26, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

So was Pope Adrian IV really an Englishman? Did Englishmen exist at this moment in history. In the year 1100 in England, weren't the locals either Saxons or Normans?

-- I have no idea, frankly. But for discussing this, either choose Talk:Pope Adrian IV or Be bold and appropriately. Greetings! --denny vrandečić 21:23, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

This is too far outside my area of expertise to edit.

-- As it is of mine :) --denny vrandečić 19:52, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to update de:Bild:Croatia_flag_large.png using en:Image:Croatia_flag_large.png? TIA. --Joy [shallot] 00:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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 (| talk)

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

Thanks. — Davenbelle 01:53, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hello,
are you still around? The Rankings table in the Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics are quite out of date... I'm thinking about taking over the job if you don't have time/will. Have you developed some custom programs/excel sheets to automate the calculatons? It would be nice if I could avoid replicating your work :-) Alfio 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) (please use this page for replying, since I rarely visit my English page).

Hi! I had started developing some programs too, but I was getting different numbers then yours (especially for the % growth), so I stopped :-) If it is OK for you I can use & develop your Python script... the way it is written is no problem. You may send it to my email ( puglisi at arcetri dot astro dot it ), or paste them wherever you want. With a properly written program the time required to generate new tables should be quite low :-) Thanks, Alfio 11:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many Croats are in Germany? HolyRomanEmperor 16:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr (tɔk) 14:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: [1] bunix 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love your semantic extention and am very excited by the potential. This could take wikipedia/wiki's to a whole new level, as well as save lots of maintenance time. I want this feature added to wikipedia as soon as possible. Thanks! Chendy (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of ACTIVE (project), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.active-project.eu. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the article http://www.active-project.eu/, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pope has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I look for untagged Meta images, I find the following and the link from your Meta user page to yours here. While I have good reason to presume these under GFDL, would you please consider tagging them {{GFDL-self}} or anything a like so we need not presume their licensing? Thanks.

• m:File:Wplogorozana1.png
• m:File:Wplogorozana3.png
• m:File:Wplogorozana4.png
• m:File:Wplogorozana5.png
• m:File:Wplogorozana6.png
• m:File:Wplogorozana6b.png
• m:File:Wplogorozana7.png
• m:File:Wplogorozana7b.png
• m:File:Wplogorozana8.png
• m:File:Wplogorozana8b.png

--Jusjih (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I get no answer from you, I have presumed these GFDL, but they cannot be moved to Wikimedia Commons unless you do license them under GFDL or something similar and acceptable. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Comparison of software engineering and related fields has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced essay that has been tagged for over two years and has fewer than 30 watchers, requires complete re-write to be encyclopedic, is not linked to from any 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pointillist (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable ephemeral project. No independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG.

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. Crusio (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the required warning that you have reverted the non-Thanos plot 3 times. Once more and you will have violated WP:3RR. Please discuss on the article talk page, wehre a discussion is ongoing, and please do not edit-war. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a 4th revert of material for which there is clearly no consensus on the talk page. I am alerting an admin now.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment that I have made four reverts. Could you please point me to where you are alerting an admin, or do you try to get a decision in absentia? --denny vrandečić (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you had a problem with the epithet? I don't understand. And if it's to be removed (I don't think it should), the "the" has to go with it. Tony (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it is obvious. Macedonia is not neighboring the Ukraine. Not even neighboring anything that is neighboring the the Ukraine. Or do I misunderstand something here? --denny vrandečić (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lalala --Casual (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, you are invited to the GSoC / OPW IRC AllHands meeting on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 15:00 UTC (8:30pm IST, 8am PDT) at #wikimedia-office. We have done our best finding a time that works decently in as many timezones as possibles. Please confirm at qgilwikimedia.org so I can add you to the calendar invitation and I have your preferred email for other occasions. If you can't make it's fine, but let me know as well. We have left a notice to all students, but your help is welcome making sure yours is aware about it. Thank you!--Qgil (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:A new metric for Wikimedia - 3.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denny, I've copy-edited the text. Please check. Thank you. Tony (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Thanks! It made the text much more readable. --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Signpost Barnstar
		Great op-ed this week! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Croatia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a poorly sourced and clear WP:POVFORK of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, as Croatia did not exist as sub-entity of Yugoslavia. Any reliably sourced material should be merged into the KoY article.

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. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denny, thanks for your review! Please review my edits. Tony (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1:, thanks, looks good! --denny vrandečić (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your funny edit is now famous.

https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/808764211648200706

 — Scott • talk 10:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a proposal by Mathias Schindler: https://twitter.com/presroi/status/767839441964634112 --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please include edit summaries when making major changes to an article, especially such as changing names from one to another. Without any explanation, it looks like vandalism on a watchlist and will be confusing to anyone who comes across the edit in the page history.  czar 19:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:, thanks, I will aim to be more thorough if an edit might be considered controversial. Sorry for the confusion! --denny vrandečić (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, don't just put in "far-right extremism". the man hated conservatives (even stated he was a communist) and wanted to provoke a culture war. Why not just remove the motive tab? (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Huh? I didn't put any such thing anywhere. But if there's no reliable source for that statement, remove it. If the reliable source contradicts a primary source, then the reliable source wins. --denny vrandečić (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Re this edit, per WP:R#PLA, please do not remove bolding from a term that is a redirect to the section containing it. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christchurch mosque shootings; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Resnjari (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Christchurch mosque shootings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please revert yourself. There is no consensus for removal of sourced content.Resnjari (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided explanations on the respective discussion page of the article. --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed a consensus. There is none. You claimed that the thread went stale and no one replied for days. That was wrong, i placed comments some hours ago. You need to revert as you have passed 3rr.Resnjari (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Sorry, can you point me to where I claim consensus or that the thread went stale? I agree that neither of these claims would be true. Where do I say that? --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well your edit summaries for one. i.e [2] "There is consensus for not linking to the manifesto". Sure you delete the link, i don't care about that, but you also include in your deletion all the other non-related text. Now that is disingenuous. If your removing the link, you remove the link, you don't go and remove sourced material outside of what your edit summary states. Then you reverted me [3] and stated that "Removed 5k characters that are just detailed annotations on what is written on the weapons. As per discussion page, no arguments were given on how this contributes to understanding of the subject of the article, and it gives an undue weight to those writings." I had added comments to the thread that were contrary to that claim some hours before. Instead of engaging on the talkpage you persisted and persisted. And then in another edit summary you wrote [4] "following a week of discussion, I removed the overly detailed footnote. No arguments were given for keeping it". The thread was ongoing as i placed comments hours earlier that does not support your contention. My thing to you is revert yourself, as you have surpassed 3rr.Resnjari (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish I could edit the summary on that first edit. I was just trying to add more text to the summary, but instead submitted it. Meh. My bad, sorry for that, that edit summary was bad. But the consensus I claim there is solely for not including the link to the manifesto.

Also, I have seen and read your comments - as I already explicitly said - but I still am too dense to see any arguments for keeping the detailed list in the footnotes. We can continue the discussion on the article talk page, where you can explicitly list the arguments for keeping these detailed annotations, even though they violate the undue weight policy. --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to revert. You surpassed 3rr and there is no consensus. The discussion is ongoing and no having information on the weapons is not WP:UNDUE. How much of that regarding names should be there is another matter. Media reported on it extensively.Resnjari (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denny,

Can you get it down to 2,000 words? Deadline is in one week (April 24 in the morning!). Please email me if you have any questions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Yes, I can, and will do so! Thank you for the opportunity. --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: My draft is now available. Thank you! --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should get a chance to take a good look at it this weekend. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's accepted. We'll copyedit it a bit more. You might put in some section titles (or we can do that). Please check it out at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Thanks! I tried to add a few section titles, but feel free to change them or shuffle them around. Thank you! --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a final look, especially at the mini-bio. Another Signposter will make a final pass at copyediting. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, looks very good! --denny vrandečić (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came across your idea on Abstract Wikipedia, as a way of making sure content can be viewed across all platforms. I think a great candidate for that would be weather. Some basic characteristics would be the date of the event, the location, the type of weather event, the number of fatalities or injuries, and the damage total (ideally can be converted into currency of your choice, but that could require a bit more coding). I mentioned such a proposal here. Thanks for doing what you do! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I think that's a great idea, and indeed, we probably should start with having these in Wikidata (which also has the advantage that it is already there). This content will then be useful for Abstract Wikipedia, once we get there, and then we can extend the information further. But I fully agree: having such data in a common place would be helpful for all. Here's an example of what's already there, in case you haven't seen it: Timeline of 2015 storms --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That 2015 list is great, but I want to see one with every weather event around the world. Tropical cyclones are fairly easy to track and read/write about - they're long-lived (compared to tornadoes, blizzards, earthquakes, and volcanoes). Thanks for the follow-up though. I think it's important to think big. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: When you say 'every weather event', I am wondering, how many are there per year? --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zdenko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidonius. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After several years of distancing, I wan to invite you tomorrow (Jan 17th at 6pm) to the Boston-gathering at MIT.

Details can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/Wikipedia_22th_Anniversary_Celebration

Hope I can see you tomorrow  — Johannes Kalliauer - contrib. 20:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Denny (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denzel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]