User talk:D. F. Schmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 10:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Papacy

You should consider your words more carefully. Just because you disagree with an edit doesn't make it "unjust." The redirect was in response to a proposal to merge the two articles, and I don't see anything in your revert that addresses the question of whether the two topics should be merged or not. Before undoing a merge, you should present some argument that the merge should be undone. And again, stop throwing around ridiculous terms like "unjust." | Mr. Darcy talk 03:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You could have responded on your talk page. I had it watched. In any case, I still don't see a reference to any such proposal, let alone a vote. And if you see the talk page, you may see that I did present an argument. While it's not an argument that takes up a lot of space, you can see it at Talk:History of the Papacy. And note the list of various eras at the top of that page. Clearly you might see that History of the Vatican City does not cover that entire span. D. F. Schmidt 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The merger proposal was made here [1] (second-to-last item in the Jan 2006 section) by the page's author. If the history of the Papacy and the history of Vatican City are inextricably linked, and either of the two articles would be too short to stand on its own (as appears to be the case of the Papacy article, which is still just a collection of links), then they should remain merged until there's sufficient content to flesh both articles out. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
In the case that they are indeed inextricably linked, I would assume that the History of the Papacy would be the parent of the History of the Vatican City. In fact, that is how the author intended the merger in the first place. "The latter [history of the Vatican City] could be merged with it [history of the Papacy] as the last section." If one was to be larger than the other, the History of the Papacy would be larger, because the History of the Vatican City is a rather small subset (with respect to content, at least). Perhaps the pope has always sat in the Vatican (other than the Avignon period), but still the importance of the city itself in that history is rather small, I suspect. But personally, I feel that the history of the Vatican City should remain a separate article because it seems as though it covers a rather small span, but in quite a good detail. D. F. Schmidt 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc

I just saw on your user page that you currently attend UCF. What are you studying? El Cubano 01:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil engineering. It's kicking my tail, but I'm not willing to change my major. D. F. Schmidt 11:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. I was class of 2004, Honors in Computer Engineering. El Cubano 15:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Segway PT

Hello there, I am very sorry for the fact that I somehow reverted your edit; I can assure you this was a mistake and I do not know how it happened, but looking at the edit I shall restore it in a minute. Also, since you seem to have taken offence to the word "nonsense", let me just point out that the revert was not done by hand, but rather using a program that speeds up reverting (as is required for the vast quantities of vandalism on here), and the message itself simply a template - i.e. not my words. So sorry again, and keep up the good work! LibLord 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's no big problem for me, but you can maybe see why I took offense at it. I hadn't seen such a message from a bot before, or maybe it just didn't look like text from one. If possible, you might want to reword that text to make it either more obvious that it's a bot, or tone it down a bit. D. F. Schmidt 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/2E/_/User_talk%7ED._F._Schmidt_18cd.html"