/Archive 1

Hi, Selket, Your images in the stapes, malleus and incus articles is really excellent. However, the item in the image referring to the labyrinth needs disambiguating as it links to the classical Labyrinth rather than the labyrinth (inner ear) where it should link. Good work however. Dieter Simon 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes indeed, it's been fixed. Thank you for pointing this out. If you see anything else let me know. --Selket ^Talk 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help! Somehow I have always missed those until you pointed out where they are. Justin Foote 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! I notice you're from Surrey - please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Surrey, which I started earlier this afternoon. Cheers.--Vox Humana 8' 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm puzzled over what to do with this edit (from a copyediting perspective). Would you please comment? Thanks in advanced. --Otheus 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Your comment moved from my talk page; reply here please):

Hi Otheus, sorry I have only just become aware of your message re Twain. Very remiss of me. As to the entry "Technology without an interesting ",the backronym, well when you google "Twain "Technology without an interesting name"", without the outer quotes, you get about 14,400 websites thrown at you, and even the UK version of Yahoo nearly 1,500 websites referring to it. As long as we ignore the Wikipedia mirror sites, I think it seems pretty genuine.

• http://www.acro.it/Acro-3F504B3D31313434.html
• http://foldoc.org/?TWAIN
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524830.700-never-the-twain.html
• http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/thenetatoz/getEntry.asp?newTitle=TWAIN+%28Technology+Without+An+Interesting+Name%29
• http://techterms.org/definition/Twain
• http://abbreviations.com/Twain

  The last two give you even a number of alternatives to the name Twain. It does make you wonder why we bother. But no, these articles are "ours", Wikipedia's lists and we should be proud of them. For once I'd go along with this. Is that what you meant when you asked me?

  What we should be including is that one of my favourite old authors Mark Twain for Sam Clemens ought to be mentioned, "Life on the Misissippi" and all. Anyway, let me know, if there is anything I can do. Dieter Simon 20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this idea of mentioning Mark Twain is a good idea....

Was that what you meant when you asked me? LOL, actually, no, :) I was referring to an editor's interjection of "(i.e., 'two of them')" into the Kipling quote. Is it really necessary to explain "twain" here? To me, it breaks the flow of the quote. I'd prefer to footnote it or something else, rather than have a parenthetical interrupting a famous quote. What do you think? --Otheus 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See your point, have cleaned it up. On second thoughts, I think the way it is explained now is probably best as that is what is meant by "Twain" in this para, as Mark Twain's name originated with the Mississippi boatmen's shout "mark one", "mark twain" - one, two fathoms deep, as far as I remember, when they dropped their plumb lines or whatever to fathom the deep, and it isn't reall relevant. Dieter Simon 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks --Otheus 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have writen on Forestdale. Do you have any interest in Selsdon

Hi, Breakfast 100, I have already been involved in the article "Selsdon", if you look in "history" I added new content on 12 June 2005, 14 Feb. 2006, and 11 Apr 2006, which constitutes most of the introductory para, and the "History" para of Selsdon. Dieter Simon 22:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link I tried to add was removed because you considered it spam. If you go to the "US and News and World Report" site and do a search on hearing aids, you will find a comprehensive article regarding hearing aids, "Good Vibrations: They're still hearing aids. But they're better--and smaller". In this article the site I tried to add is referenced along with all the other sites that are already in the external link to this article. The following is a quote from the article:

"If Ralph Nader had run a website in the '60s for people with hearing problems, it might have been like Hard of Hearing Advocates. Nothing and no one are beyond criticism on this volunteer-run site. The message board is especially feisty."

I am confused as to how this was perceived as spam as this site does not sell anything and I don't believe there are any advertisements on it either. This is the premier hard of hearing online forum. Also Natalie, an administrator, gave me her blessing for including the link after removing it the other day. Please look at the site and tell me what makes it spam. I will add this to the discussion pages as well. hoha2 19:36 , April 23 2007 (UTC)

Hoha2, nevertheless, you are advertising for your own company, aren't you? Even if you are giving a service, it is still advertising for your own firm. I am sorry that is very much spam, from where I am sitting. Dieter Simon 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dieter, I am not sure what you are talking about. By you argument every external link is a advertisement. Please explain why the other links are not advertisements and this is. I am a hard of hearing member of the forum for the site and have no other affiliation to the site. Where on the site do you see any profiteering occurring? It is an advocacy group for the hard of hearing. "Us News and World Report" acknowledges it's relevancy to the hard of hearing. Please go to the forum and look at its content. It is purely material that all hard of hearing people should read. It has the answers to every question that has ever been asked about hearing problems and how it effects my life and every other hard of hearing person's life. It is run by the hard of hearing for the hard of hearing. It's a world reknown site. Please state what part of the site indicates that :::it is a "company" or a "firm". I am not hyping anything. I am a hard of hearing person who spent decades looking for a resource like this. And that is why I want to put the link up. For myself and for others who are hard of hearing or are geniunely concerned about the cause for the hard of hearing. Next time you respond please provide references to substantiate your argument. hoha2 22:36 , April 23 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I should say in reply to your message is, that you have indeed chosen a rather unfortunate nick in signing off as "hoha2" which obviously refers to the name of the website you are "advocating" ("Hard of Hearing Advocates"). Other editors will connect this with some personal interest. I don't know what your personal involvement in the forum is, you are seemingly more than a mere member of a forum, as you are signing off in this way.

You are also not registered as a "user", you are not a Wikipedia editor as such (hence the red link and on clicking on the user link produces a blank field), but are an editor using Wikipedia for your own purpose (how ever noble). At this stage I should refer you to the guide-lines for WP-users as regards to spam: Wikipedia:Spam, and see "External link spamming" where the first para reads as follows:

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.

The problem is that it is not at all obvious what the website represents, a forum yes, but what else? Is there a hidden meaning? Editors will not get involved in the website if it looks anything like advocating a "cause". So every time you add your external link, it may stay for a while only to be "reverted" at the next opportunity when other editors come across it.

Even if there is no commercial interest involved, it is still promoting a website (and a cause). Perhaps registering as a WP user, and then writing a little para referring to forums which can help those who have hearing difficulties, might alter the perception of what you are trying to do, but don't hold your breath. It will be pounced on for the above reasons, depending on the perception of the editor at the time. There can be no certainty that an external link (or any other content, for that matter) will remain if there is the slightest doubt of "spam", I am sorry, we are an encyclopaedia and not there to promote "causes". However, I wish you luck in your endeavours. Dieter Simon 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again Dieter your argument is null and void. There is already an advocacy link in the external link for shhh. All the links are either run directly or indirectly by audiologists who obviously make money off the hard of hearing. Are you perhaps associated with the field of audiology? I will add the hoha link. If you or anybody else deletes the link, I will delete every other link. Since aferall no external link meets any of your criteria. Of course I will reference you as the source for the reason why the links were be deleted. hoha2 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not arguing, hoha, I am just advising you what happens in Wikipedia, nor am I involved to any great extent. You were wondering why and I gave the reason that in Wikipedia anyone can edit an article according to the guidelines. I gave you good advice to register and be an editor on the article and explain what the forums do, rather than just enter an external link which almost certainly would be rmoved. That's all I can do for you. I shall paste this in the two hearing-related articles. Dieter Simon 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Copy_of_Sweet_chestnut_coppice_DSCF0326.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the steel square because it was just as valid as, say, a welding rig, a paintbrush or a hammer; why are the tools used significant in the context of a stairway? As an architect, I think there are more important aspects of stairs than the tools used to build them, unless it's a how-to article. Lots of things are used to create stairs (although I admit that a square is essential), but do we need to list them all here? Rmasbury 23:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Rmasbury, I understand, but this is the old problem, as an architect you are totally familiar with the term "steel square" and so find it unimportant. But an encyclopaedia is not meant for the expert/professional of a particular subject or discipline. You as a professional will turn to professional literature, an encyclopaedia however is meant for the person who knows little about the subject but wants to know as much as possible about it. I would have thought it important to impart as much as possible knowledge of the tools used in subject, as well as all the links leading to other articles? If I have never built/designed a staircase/stairway in my life, how would I know there is such a thing as steel square? You admit it is essential. We have probably all decorated our homes before now and therefore know a paintbrush, but a steel square?

Can I ask you to include terms such as these in the article, I know it's boring for you but it's not so for the uninitiated. As one Wikipedian to another I invite you look at it from that person's point of view. I shall put this on your Talk page as well. Thanks Dieter Simon 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dieter -

You just tried to do something to the references section I'd added to Pollarding, then undid it again. I'm new to making references work, so I'm not at all sure I'd done it right -- but what were you trying to do, and what didn't work? Richard New Forest 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Richard, I was trying to bring your "References" item "Oxford English Dictionary Compact Edition 1971..." up to the first line of the page when you click the ref no. (No 1 in this case) thinking your (although quite correct) way wasn't working, but my shorter method didn't work any better either. The References section is still at the bottom of the page when you click it. I apologise as have already done in the summary. Normally, when you click the link number the reference appears as first line right at the top, so anybody trying to identify what is being linked can see it straight away. See section "Origin and usage of term" in "Pollarding" article.

I am transferring this conversation to your own user talk:page. Dieter Simon 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coppicing. Quite right! It was what I ought to have written originally, but when someone (75.2.131.200) corrected it I changed it back. Just shows how the memory plays tricks, as I could have sworn it all happened in reverse and it was me who changed it to "were" – I was only convinced after going back through the edit history... Thanks. --Richard New Forest 09:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish to pay tribute to the sterling work Pafcool has contributed to the Croydon articles. Well done.

Thanks for that, praises such as this really make working on Wikipedia the more worth while. And thanks for your hard work on creating and expanding the fantastic Croydon Airport page, which has really helped me on the maiun borough article.

Thanks,

Pafcool2 19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dieter, recently an anonymous user has made dozens of edits to Broadstairs, Thanet, Margate and certain other articles that have been full of spelling, punctuation and formatting errors. S/he has ignored the proscription against self-links, and repeatedly linked the same words in violation of WP:CONTEXT. To make matters worse, s/he usually places periods and commas after a space and immediately before the next word, instead of placing them at the end of a word and leaving a space before the next word. Finally, s/he has regularly made edits that reflect personal opinion in violation of WP:NPOV. S/he has ignored all entreaties from other editors to edit properly. I have clean up a lot of her/his messes, and have decided to stop doing so. You fix a few of the errors of her/his last edit, so I fixed the remainder, but in the future, I will go back to reverting. The situation was so bad that these articles were semi-protected against this editor for a while. Ground Zero | t 04:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over a Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I shall not be available for a week or so, but will answer queries in a fortnight from now. Dieter Simon (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:R2D, and do not "fix" legitimate redirects. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assumed you were being tongue-in-cheek, but I thought I'd check. You did mean that as a joke didn't you - that a picture of a closed, run down pub should be included in the name section of the Public house article? Sometimes it's not clear what someone's intention is, and if you are serious, please forgive me because it's not obvious what the intention is. SilkTork *^YES! 18:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it does actually tie in with the text of pubs with amusing names - in this case that was and no longer is! We are always concerned with substantiating and sourcing facts in Wikipedia, sometimes more worriedly than need be, but in this case, where there is no longer any tangible proof of a pub existing with such a name, a photograph is the only source. And what I said about pub heritage is still valid, and if this sounds quaint, a pub called "Nowhere Inn Particular" is indeed quaint, but exist it did. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved the image to the Pub names article where it seems to sit more comfortably. I also moved a chunk of text on pub names from Public house to the talkpage of that article as we had too much for comfort. Would you be willing to join the Pub Task Force? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Pub_Task_Force Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, sorry to trouble you. I wasn't quite sure where to turn, or to who. I have a comment that keeps disapearing without any explanation. "Conspiracy 'Theories' Statement Problem" at the bottom of the Talk page on "9-11 Attacks": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks

This is the third time at least that I've re-posted my comment in the past week. Is there any way that I can protect my comment or that I can make a complaint? Surely there must be some kind of record on whoever has been doing it..?

Thanks, Neurolanis (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, nevermind. It is posted now and I have been reported for abusing rules or whatever in expressing myself and am awaiting judgement, and may be denied access to editing certain pages or worse.

Thanks anyway. Neurolanis (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noticed your reply. Thanks for your time and help, much appreciated! Neurolanis (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...because it's the responsibility of the editor adding information to source it; it isn't the responsibility of Admins applying policy to waste their time NOT dealing with vandalism and going source-hunting. Just occasionally, I have some spare time to write my own articles, but that's rare these days. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 00:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I found very little information on Reichssportführer Arno Breitmeyer, there is not even an article on him in the German Wikipedia. Could you obtain his birth and death dates (and if other biographical data better) from German sources?
• I found no information of the activity of the NSRL in Czechoslovakia. I assume all Czech sports units and teams were incorporated into the NSRL's orbit. But I have no direct information on that. Do you know souces for this? Thank you in advance, Xufanc (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the time being I have only looked at Arno Breitmeyer, and have not been terribly lucky:

http://www.calsky.com/lexikon/de/txt/h/ha/hans_von_tschammer_und_osten.php http://www.rrk-online.de/rudern/chronrudern/deumeiru/dm-m-achter.htm

In http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1040151. which however is only a forum entry in which someone states the date he was born was 19.04.03 in Berlin and that he died 20.04.44 Brigadeführer (ranked as Generalmajor, the equivalent of major-general (U.S.) or Brigadier-general in the British Army) In the above he seems to have been quite a rower as you will see. Anyway, I will get back to you with the other query. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for the information. In Austria, after the Anschluss, the football teams of the Austrian League were incorporated into the German League. I wonder whether the same was true for the Czech teams. If you find out more anytime, please tell me. Thanks again. Xufanc (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that you took some time despite being so busy. With Austria it was easy, but with Czechoslovakia my error was that I was looking under "Czech", but now thanks to you pointing out, I have found that there is an article Gauliga Sudetenland and another Gauliga Böhmen und Mähren in Wikipedia itself. Whenever you have time you may check the article on Arno Breitmeyer, I updated it yesterday using the links you gave me. Xufanc (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again Dieter. I hope I am not disturbing you, for you said you would be busy. But I am very puzzled by the following: As I was expanding the Hans von Tschammer und Osten English article by translating from the German one[1], I stumbled upon this: "Am 18. September 1944 wurde Karl Ritter von Halt neuer Reichssportführer. Eigentlich hätte 1943/1944 Arno Breitmeyer (1903–1945) Tschammers Nachfolger werden sollen." The same article has the Reichssportführer navigational bar at the bottom mentioning "1943–1944: Arno Breitmeyer" as leader. Since it appears to contradict itself, I find this puzzling. Does the German article need correction? Please answer when you have time. Xufanc (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Dieter! Sorry for answering late, but I just saw your reply up there and I have the bad habit of only looking at the bottom of the page. I will have to check again up there in the future. Thank you for the effort. I think the Hans von Tschammer und Osten German article is not rightly worded. There is probably a correction to be made there. I also realized that I am not the only one who wonders about the circumstances of Mr. Breitmeyer's death. In a WW2 forum someone asked the same question. - Xufanc (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Diet, you have archived your talk page but not deleted the archived content. The page is hence long, and may take time to load on a slower network. Jay (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks, Jay, for reminding me. I'd forgotten all about that. Have deleted now. Dieter Simon (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for giving a source for the date of Croydon Tramlink>Tramlink.--SilasW (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An administrator could be expected to know WP disapproves of UC, for being the equivalent of shouting. As for the "area around Croydon" I do not know where to draw the line between Croydon and the next LB to the NW.--SilasW (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry SilasW, I am not sure what you are referring to with UC in this particular context "area around Croydon". Am I missing something or am I being particularly obtuse? As for drawing the line between Croydon and the next LB to the NW, it is the London Borough of Merton which includes the UK Parliamentary Constituency of Mitcham and Morden, as well as Wimbledon, Raynes Park and Colliers Wood.

As for the Norwoods, both South Norwood and Upper Norwood are in Croydon, but West Norwood belongs to the LB of Lambeth. Does that help? Dieter Simon (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"uppercase" as in "NO". Morden, in the area around Croydon, has a tube station. The map I had called up gave no administrative or constituency boundaries.--SilasW (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dieter,

  I must say I very much appreciate that people put some of their own free time into enriching such a useful online resource.

  I wanted to respond to your edit comment on my own edit dated 23:19, 12 March 2009 as found on this page: [1].

  In your comment you seem to be asking me why I had put a Who/Which tag on the phrase.  I edited the phrase because it seemed that the article's own rule was being broken when it was written in the form, quote: "As a rule, ad populum arguments should be avoided. As most wikipedians agree."

  It could have been a typo on the part of the author or it could have been an unintentional use of an ad populum argument, but in either case, as it was written, in my opinion it broke the rule on use of ad populum arguments.

  That you have fixed it by editing it as, quote: "such as "as most Wikipedians agree..."" was a correct fix if the intention was to make the point by using an example.

  Thank you,

I'm not registered on Wikipedia yet but my usual online nick is:

216.90.33.33 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Flood.Reply[reply]

Hello. Since you have been so kind to make the observation, I thought this issue would need an update. The discussion on it.wiki stated that the plural term is more used in Italian Hystoriography than the singular, so we decided it could stay at this title. Greetings, --Austroungarika scold or call 13:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have replied on Austroungarika's User: talk page. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the problem is sorted now. Would you have a look and see if it is as you intended? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Sunday if you fancy coming.Theresa Knott | token threats 18:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed your work on articles related to forestry...good work! Please consider joining WP:FORESTRY. Minnecologies (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Section of the Art Deco houses DSCF0339.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Section of the Art Deco houses in Selsdon.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Section of the Art Deco houses in Selsdon.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dieter, ordinarily I would remove a vanity picture of a cat placed in a cat article. However, looking at the link for Tama, I found out that this catr was probably as famous as the Clinton's calico cat was (in its own context of course). Therefore, I would thus value the picture of this notable cat above an equal-quality picture of an unknown cat. Please realize that this is not a vanity insertion (not *my* cat!). If you think there are already enough pictures in the article proper, we could switch another picture out to insert this one. If you think this picture fails on the grounds of picture quality, please expound. In any case, I would say this picture should make it in on grounds of WP:NOTE.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am moving this discussion to the Talk:Tortoiseshell cat page. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dieter, a few days ago you added a "facts" flag to the article Expressways. This was subsequently changed to a "Citation Needed" flag. I used Google Earth and within five muinutes I was able to verify the statement concerned. Do facts of this nature really need a citation? If so, where does one find these facts? Please be a little more careful when asking for citations. I have removed this flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have sent following answer to Martinvl's talk page. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Martinvl, I don't know about being careful asking for citations. Are you saying that all those editors adding references (in the "Reference" section) whenever they add any text are wasting their time, then? When in fact we are being exhorted to do exactly that? See Wikipedia:Verifiability. The sheer fact that it hasn't been done more often, and that at a flick we can obtain those facts from Google, is neither here nor there. An encyclopaedia creating text, should always cite its sources, not ask readers to go somewhere else to verify facts in order to believe what has been written. No, we should always source our statements, it is not a big deal, espececially if we know where to find these fact. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I have some time, I will revisit this entry and add a reference consisting of "This can be viewed using for example Google Earth. The coordinates are: East end - xxxx; West end - xxxx; Viewed dd-mmm-yyyy". Would this be appropriate, or do you think that teh citation should have some other format? Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, I don't know, you can try and enter it the way you think. Though I have done editing for a number of years I have never come across it. Perhaps you can put a section into the Talk:Expressway page to see what others say for present and future purposes. Let me have a look and see if there is an external source I can find. Will copy this to Martinvl's talk page. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done - please visit Expressways. Any comments - the statement is now verifiable. Martinvl (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated -onym, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-onym and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Шизомби (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nikolaikirche.JPG, 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. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the image has been replaced by someone else's picture. I am alright with the change, I think it is a better one than mine, so go ahead. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a problem with the comment that there should be a citation for the content of John Baker's lecture on the Morrison shelter. What I've put is is an eyewitness (i.e. myself) account of the lecture - I've yet to find anything else that present's John Baker's own account of the design of the Morrison shelter, which is a shame, because it was really good. I'm still working on it though, I may have identified a booklet he wrote, so watch this space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alc59 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the video (how did you find it?) - certainly this was part of the lecture. What's the best way to integrate it into the item ? I'm sure that there must be a good scientific article on this published somewhere, because John Baker wasn't afraid to court publicity. Hopefully we can find this. It might be worth contacting the CUEA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alc59 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got hold of a copy of John Baker's Book 'Enterprise versus Bureaucracy - The Development of Structural Air Raid Precautions during the Second World War' Pergammon Press 1978. 123 pages packed with detail - this is a 'must read' if you're really into the topic of air raid shelter development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alc59 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bristol Airport and Bristol Filton Airport are both on the A38. The former is south of the city, the latter to the north. Here is a map of Bristol Airport. Here is a map of Filton. In both cases you can see the A38 immediately on the eastern threshold of the runway. --Simple Bob (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are, however, two different airports? Dieter Simon (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course they are, with two different names in two different locations. You put the wrong airport into the A38 article. --Simple Bob (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

Just noticed your comments in the edit summary wondering how people were able to edit the page, I think I can clear that up for you. About 6 months ago I requested protection of the page due to vandalism and that was granted until 30 March. So on 30 March the page should have become unprotected again for all to edit. I did notice some vandalism on it last night but as it was only a couple of efforts I decided to leave it, warn people about vandalism on the talk page and if the vandalism was continuing tonight I was going to request the appropriate protection again. I really don't know why people always vandalise that page! I had hoped that by now the vandalism would've calmed down on it but every time that page comes off protection you can almost guarantee that it will be vandalised again within a day or two --5 albert square (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dieter Simon

I thought the word 'religious' is often adjective in short form. This word 'religious' can also be a noun. As being the noun, this word 'religious' has two definitions [[2]]:
(1) 'a member of a religious order, congregation, etc.; a monk, friar, or nun. '
(2) 'the religious, devout or religious persons'

I see that No.2 definition is related to the people living in villages with various religions in India.

I also didn't know that this word 'religious' is a modifier of 'following'. Thanks for explaining it. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have sent reply to Kimberry352, to explain. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Simon, thanks for explaining it to me again. I got it. (: Kimberry352 (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that this discussion has been closed, would you mind restoring the use of the term Tudor Revival architecture in the article, in some reasonable way? Your decision to remove all references to the Tudor Revival architecture save for the lede was, I felt, a bit arbitrary and premature. I think it might be a sign of good faith on your part to address this. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Dieter Simon. I recently removed an unsourced addition to Backronym. You then undid my undoing, saying "Request citation is the point". Fair enough, though another point is the consensus to prevent the proliferation of trivial examples on the page. I will bring this up on Talk:Backronym if you care to respond. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Sir, Do I feel a bit of attitude in this chapter? History is written by the winners (==survivors), but why the attitude and especially why in an article about Arthur Zimmermann ? The 3rd paragraph hardly contains any information and as such would be better off if it was off? Weird, the German page looks like a stub; I might take a mission on balancing the information on these two pages. But not now, have to go. Just my guinea for your thoughts. Seikku Kaita (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UUPS, what I'm talking about is Arthur_Zimmermann and second to last chapter before references list, with title Nurse Edith Cavell's execution. Seikku Kaita (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Seikku, it certainly was not my intention to let an "attitude" as you call it, creep into my editing at the time. I can only say, perhaps, with hindsight I might have included more of Arthur Zimmermann's speech pertaining to the execution as reported by the First World War article cited at the end of the "Edith Cavell" section, but I am not sure whether more of the same or even the whole part might have made any difference.

One thing is almost certain, as German Secretary for Foreign Affairs at the time, it would have been impossible for him to let more personal feelings as to his pity or not, intrude into anything he said or might have said. The sheer fact would probably have been he had to maintain a position as such. But that is only an assumption, and as you know we can only cite original sources in an encyclopaedia as Wikipedia.

If, however, you can cite such sources as to the facts, please do so, and yes, it would complement the section on the Edith Cavell execution indeed well. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:André Maginot DSCF0734.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:André Maginot DSCF0734.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Magog the Ogre, I took the photo of André Maginot's Memorial when I visited. It was not to add a discourse as to its artistic merits or a discussion as to why I might have thought these merits deserved to be included in the Wikipedia article on André Maginot. It was merely to indicate that such a memorial existed at all. I have added the information as far as I know it of who created the memorial and when it was dedicated. What more can I do to satisfy the demands as required above. I created the photo, I do not claim copyright to the actual memorial. You will have to explain to me what you want me to do.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Andr%C3%A9_Maginot_DSCF0734.JPG&oldid=461463844" .

I have not taken part editing Wikipedia in recent months as I am nearly eighty-one years of age, I will in fact have to leave it to my younger colleages to continue the good work. So You will have to let me know exactly what you want me to do. All the infromation i have is given. Dieter Simon (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Dieter Simon,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have sent message back to Jonathan Obar by email

Dieter Simon (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to notify you all that I am no longer able to take part as an Admin or Contributor, as time has caught up with me and I am now eighty-three years old. Health problems are causing me to cease work on what I always enjoyed as a most fruitful and interesting activity, that of contributing to one of the greatest undertakings I have ever had the good fortune to take part in. I wish all of you well and that Wikipedia may continue to thrive Dieter Simon (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dieter. Thanks for your time and effort you put into helping Wikipedia. Since you replied before thirty days, it is considered that you are active again. Your message implies you no longer wish to be an administrator or editor, so if you wish to resign adminship formally, you can go to the bureaucrats' noticeboard and formally do it (since I can't help remove the tools for you, sorry). If you don't, you'll get the "pending desysop" messages again in a year and in 30 days after that, you'll be desysopped then. Thanks again for everything. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As stated below, I went ahead and asked and your resignation was taken up on, and your account has been desysopped. Should you ever want it back, go ahead and post to the the bureaucrats' noticeboard and they'll give it back. Enjoy your time with other endeavors and I hope to see you on every once in a while. :) Again, thank you for all your contributions. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dieter. There is no need to make a post elsewhere, your notification here is sufficient. Thank you very much for all the time you have invested in Wikipedia. I wish you all the best, WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for all the hard work you've put in to helping improve Wikipedia over the last eleven years. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

I don't think I've ever crossed paths with you before, but thank you for all of your hard work. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better. Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding ((subst:wikitea)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

• Great work, thanks! Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

spirit
Thank you for "originating" quality articles for the community such as malleus, timber framing and Eisenach, for nuances, like hiking and walking in different English, for "calming down" vandalism , for your voice against the spirit of weasel words rather than a list of words to avoid, for your spirit, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 750th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 750 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Dieter, for all your work. At nearly 20 years your junior I'm still a kid by comparison - I'll hope i'll still be around for a few more years yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Dieter Simon, for all the work you've done here. It's admirable and impressive when someone keeps with a project for 10+ years. Best wishes to you. Acalamari 09:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Dieter,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. I never managed to encounter you during the time you've been here, which surprises me since you started editing only a few months before I did! But thank you very much for your service, and I hope that you'll be proud to display the badge for the Society on your user page, even if you're not editing any more. All the best for your retirement.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 11:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Kudos for your work on behalf of WP. Standing down with over 73% of total edits to mainspace says it all in terms of correct priorities expanding the encyclopedia. The best of luck in your next quarter century! Carrite (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]