Reddi

---

If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.
By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist ...
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry ... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.

---

Put new comments below
Past discussion can be seen through the History page

Responses

"Please do not feed the trolls".

So Long, and Thanks for all the comments

[replies here; sniping addressed ones; user responding to - comments; most "quoted" comments are in italics]

New criticism, comments, and feedback

From time to time I'll respond here and delete the old content; see history if you want the archive. J. D. Redding 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Telegeodynamics

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

WP:NOTMIRROR / single primary source public domain source material, not a real thing. Also self promotion of one editors book.

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

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

Please consider improving the page 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. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Militant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Militant, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militant until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

copyright on Shuttlecock photo?

@Reddi: Did you get legal permission from whomever owns the copyrights to the File:Shuttlecock - Nelson Art Gallery.png to release a photo of that art under a free license?

Please excuse, but my reading of Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US says that the copyright owners of public art like the giant Shuttlecocks do not relinquish their ownership of the copyright by installing it for public viewing, especially anything first displayed 1989-03-01 or later. Per Linten (2010), these giant shuttlecocks were installed 1994-07.

I think all changes to US copyright law since 1970 have been monuments to political corruption. However, another nonprofit with which I'm associated just got demand letters for $1,200 each for two photographs on their website without copyright permission. I'm concerned that WMF could be sued big time if this photo were distributed claiming that we have a right to distribute an image like this when we do NOT have such a right. US copyright law is complicated. The artists who created those sculptures may retain the copyrights and may only have sold the sculptures to the Nelson.

I'm not making this up. At my suggestion, Stephanie Kelton tried to post a photo of her to Wikimedia Commons; it was rejected, because it had been taken by a professional photographer, and Stephanie could not prove she owned the copyright: She may have bought only the print.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

References

• Christopher Linton (18 October 2010). "World's Largest Shuttlecocks: Four 18-foot-tall badminton shuttlecocks lie scattered about the lawn of a Kansas City museum". Atlas Obscura. Wikidata Q137797098.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

"Multiple identity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Multiple identity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 28 § Multiple identity until a consensus is reached. Abesca (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Article improvement suggestion

Hello @Reddi. Your article is a great start! To make it even better, consider adding more references to reliable sources. This helps verify the information and improves the article's quality. Check out this Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources for more details. ~2026-34671-58 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)