Congratulations! Culture of Hong Kong has been chosen Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week. Please help improve it to featured article standard. — Instantnood 21:22, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

On this week's Article Improvement Drive voting, an article you supported was selected. This week we focus on improving Antigua and Barbuda and Criticisms of War on Terrorism to featured article status. Hope you can help. 119 01:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dmcdevit, The articles you added to the WikiProjectCSBTasks template are definitely in need of some attention. The way the history of Tripoli apparently stops in 1911 is kind of disturbing. When you have a moment you may want to add the articles to the Open Tasks page; otherwise, they'll disappear from CSB forever when somebody rotates other articles in. Cheers, BanyanTree 06:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, done--Dmcdevit 19:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are going well beyond the call of duty with your addition of all the other orphans on the template. Nice work. - BanyanTree 03:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CSB's a great cause, I'm glad you've done so much work on it! --Dmcdevit 03:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing defunct or inactive COTWs from the template makes it harder for the projects to gain an audience. Why not make a seperate template or category for inactive COTWs so the main template can be cleaned up a bit without putting the projects at a disadvantage? Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me.--Dmcdevit 16:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your message. I am slowly getting a hang of wikipedia, and hope to contribute regularly in the next few years. Infact, I have just built a personal site where I wnated to document information that I come across. With Wikipedia, I will be able to share it with the world, and enrich my fields of interest further.

I am hoping to build some collaborative work on issues relating to health, nutrition and education. Can you share with me your experiene on how you went about collaborative projects?

Thanks,

Vivekdse 11:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See my talk page regarding your question to me about the rambot. -- RM 16:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

And again. -- RM 18:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

See that page and Wikipedia talk:Typo/capitalization. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Beland 14:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ah well... At least it's all cleared up now.--Dmcdevit 16:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun and put a cleanup tag on an article after it's 9 minutes old. Perhaps next time you ought to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that someone is in the process of working on it, nitwit. —ExplorerCDT 03:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. I finished it 3 minutes after you put the cleanup tag on the article. Geesh, you must have been triggerhappy. —ExplorerCDT 03:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Removing comments on a talk page (even if it is yours) just because they happen to be negative and not complimentary is akin to vandalism here, Dmcdevit, and it smacks of bad faith and someone desperate to hide bad press. Respond to my comments, learn from them, straighten up and fly right. —ExplorerCDT 03:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Excuse me, you just did what I apparently did. I had no intention of removing it, as you can see by the fact that I responded to you (your talk page). I was about to restore the mistakenly deleted when I see your further message here. I don't understand why you are so combative, its not as if I have ever done anything to you before this mistake; let's move on.--Dmcdevit 03:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I should give you the benefit of having "mistakenly" deleted it. (note:sarcasm). I'm combative to whosoever decides it prudent jump the gun and without first doing their homework. So far, You've given me no reason to apologize for calling you a nitwit. —ExplorerCDT 03:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If that's what you get off on, I'll try not to let the mean words on the screen penetrate my thin skin. My you are short-tempered.--Dmcdevit 03:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Still haven't given me a reason to apologize, but I hope for your sake you learned from this. —ExplorerCDT 03:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I have, maybe you should reread my messages. Btw, I find it laughable that you tell me that I smack of bad faith, (citing the "assume good faith" page) while making a personal attack. I'm done being first confused and then annoyed at your comments, it's quite amusing now. Try not to condescend to me as I am not a newcomer or an idiot (I know you'll want to make some sarcastic remark that I am, or that you can condescend if you want to, but that'll just make me laugh harder, so go ahead). And for future reference, you need not keep responding, as I doubt I will keep responding to you; this is going nowhere. Happy editing.--Dmcdevit 03:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I would like to thank you for nominating the History of science as an FAC. It really helps to have you champion the article and take the heat, which really helps those of us who are editing it. I have taken mav's idea to heart, as has Allen3. We are starting to move out text to the main articles and we are attempting to make a Summary style History of Science. As a first approximation to mav's idea, I started with the current article, which was 59KB, about 30 [page keys] in length. Then I added an infobox as an approximation of the Framework of a Summary style article. The I started throwing out text (taking care to throw out items that I had personally contributed to, so that I would have an interest in restoring some of the text afterward) and this is what was left, about 30KB of article, including the HTML infobox.

So this gives an idea of what is available (in terms of word count) to work with in a Summary style article. Each word that we add to some section means a word gets taken out of the existing sections, to stay within a 30KB budget. It is definitely doable. But we need some consensus to help us decide what to keep in the History of science main article. Obviously, the word count in the parent or child articles doesn't count for the Summary style article. But the choice of the words is crucial. So would you mind reflecting back some of these points back to the FAC page? We need some more help selecting the Summary points and summary words. I am trying to keep in mind the ADD reader, as well.

Again, thank you for your championing of the article. Perhaps you can resubmit it later if time runs out and we are not yet completely compressed down to 30KB in time for the FAC voting this go-around. BTW, my niece and her husband live in Lafayette. She is a new professor at Cal.

• Wow, what are the chances? I love Berkeley, the little movie theaters and ethnic restaurants! Well, let me just say, you've probably noticed that I did not contribute to the article in its development. I don't want to deceive you: I would not consider myself entirely knowledgeable in the subject, but I will try to help out in copyeditting, and that type of stuff. Also, I have a hard time imagining that any article below 50kB would (or at least should) be voted down solely due to length (check out the precedents, many long ones). PS, anyone can nominate an article (even if they're not a writer of it like me) so be sure to be bold and nominate it youself if need be.--Dmcdevit 02:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that place names shouldn't be disambiguated unless there are two places of the same name. This is the convention used for most of the world (but not the U.S.). Where disambiguation is needed, I've used the place, country format you suggest - for instance Touba, Côte d'Ivoire and Touba, Senegal. Warofdreams 10:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "move to wiktionary" tag is to mark articles that are appropriate for wiktionary, but not wikipedia. You might consult Wikipedia:Things_to_be_moved_to_Wiktionary#Marking_dictionary_articles for more information. -- WormRunner | Talk 19:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I've learned my lesson :)--Dmcdevit 19:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS, I don't know what article you saw my misplaced tag on, but it is most likely a requested article at wiktionary. If you have any knowledge in the subject, please add an entry over at wiktionary.

Why did you suggest Brahmin be redirected to wictionary? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions)

• The tag has since been removed because it would have been too much of a hassle to make that into a dictionary deinition. But, the word Brahmin has been requested on wiktionary, as its definition is needed. If you are knowledgeable in the area, please contribute an entry at wiktionary. Also, if an article were to be transwikied, it would not be redirected, but kept if it is encyclopedic or deleted if it cannot become so.--Dmcdevit 23:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dmcdevit, Thank you for your support and kind words in my nomination. It was very gratifying and I look forward to helping out. - BanyanTree 04:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Dmcdevit. I just wanted to say I miss your welcome message. ;-)

Actually, do you know if there's a good template welcome for newcomers, or a project for putting one together? Jonathunder 02:55, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Reread the template notice. I removed the notice because the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion, as the template allows for.

As I noted in my earlier edit summary, it's hard to argue that a topic that an entire book has been written about is insufficiently encyclopedic to write an encyclopedia article about it. If you disagree, nominate it for VfD. -- Curps 01:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Being a dicdef stub is actually not one of the criteria for speedy deletion, in fact I believe it was explicitly voted down in the latest set of proposals to expand the criteria for speedy deletion. If it's a topic that most people would agree could never have any encyclopedic potential, then sometimes admins will bend the rules, "shoot, shovel and shut up" and nobody minds. But affluenza arguably does have not just encyclopedic but book potential (ie, a book actually exists), and the current page with "see also", "external references" and book references, categorization and stub classification, is already more than just a dicdef and is just waiting for someone to expand it. -- Curps 02:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, looking at the page history, it seems that template was created quite recently (March 25). Perhaps it shouldn't exist. I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bot_User:KevinBot -- Curps 02:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be a fairly trivial thing to make my transwikifier move articles to Wikisource. However, I'm very burned on on transwikying stuff (I've gotten a crapload of grief and very little love over the process) so I don't want to do the actual transwikying.

If you want to do the work, and if you run Windows, I'll send you the program and instructions on how to use it if you want. Kevin Rector 04:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

You won't have to do any programming. It's a program that I wrote, you'll just have to run it. Kevin Rector 05:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

What version of Windows are you running? Kevin Rector 05:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Give me your e-mail address and I'll send you the program and instruction. Kevin Rector 05:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotten your e-mail and I'll be sending it out either tonight or tomorrow. It won't move to Wikisource, I'll still need to add that, but it will move to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector 05:32, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Another possible theory as to how the plague spread so quickly is that by killing many of the cats (believed to be witchs' familiars) during the witch hunts caused the rodent population to rise, and with them rose the probability of infection." Taken from an anon, 68.174.249.133, later reverted by you.

I've heard this one, but don't have the materials on hand to substantiate it. Actually it was probably a social result of the ongoing waves of plague. People looked for scapegoats -- some reason why these horrible things were happening to them -- and often focused on older people who may have survived earlier rounds of the disease (and Jews, of course). The number of accusations of witchcraft increased, and measures became more draconian. These people's pets and livestock were often burned or hung along with them as "familiars." I also remember that it was about this time that the genetic mutation that results in black domestic cats emerged. The sudden appearance of these "black imps of Satan" was mentioned in a couple of sources. This led some historian(s) to speculate about a massive roundup of cats. An interesting bit of information, but perhaps not for the article. WBardwin 20:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)