User talk:Dhtwiki/Archive 10

Removal of maintenance templates
You've been removing maintenance templates from Constitution of the United States without engaging in discussion on the talk page. Could you please stop? I find this drive-by de-tagging disruptive. Freoh (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's your insistence on tagging articles, after the discussion shows that your concerns don't resonate with other editors, that is the problem. You aren't going to be able to hold articles hostage to your point of view forever, without the support of others. Show me where consensus favors your edits. Why are you tagging so late in the ongoing discussion? Dhtwiki (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Earlier, I was hoping that the issue would be quickly resolved, which is why I didn't tag, but I now think that it might be helpful to point other editors to the discussion. I understand that my edits don't resonate with you, which is why I've been asking you for clarification in the talk page. Freoh (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Stonewalling
I feel like you've been stonewalling me in Talk:Constitution of the United States. I think I've been clear about my objections to the current version of the article, and I've proposed an improvement that is based on reliable sources. I understand that you are unsatisfied with my proposal, but I have asked, and you have not answered, just repeatedly stated that there is no consensus. Could you please make an effort to participate in the discussion? &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 21:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been participating, but you just keep asking questions that I feel I've answered. Just because you think there should be a change, doesn't mean that a change has to be made. I feel strongly against your wanting to use "colonized subjects", instead of "citizens" or some more neutral term; and I feel that your "reliable sources" don't reflect a consensus point-of-view. Unless others support your change, which I would continue to argue against but would at least accept that consensus is in your favor, I think that you should let the matter drop. Status quo stonewalling says:
 * Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion.
 * And I think that I've done that. You might not like my rationale, but I have given it and have engaged in discussion, which isn't going to go on forever with you just continuing to ask for further clarification. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 19:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hannibal Rising (film) - Not 1941
The opening scenes of the film Hannibal Rising with 8 year old Lecter were only set in 1944. Not 1941 as well. See it's talk page. 86.130.217.201 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Interwiki links
I noticed that you reverted a vandal at Special:Diff/1136588787. But you probably didn't know what it was. It did render. Basically,  are interwiki links, it adds a link to that page in the "languages" section at the top (vector-2022 skin) or sidebar (vector) and does not show up in article text. From 2013, however, this practice is discouraged, and interwiki links must be added on the wikidata: item of the article. Sometimes, when it is necessary to render it on page instead of "languages" section, a colon  should be added before. Now, I can say this was a vandal, and not a good faith editor because, the IP added such links to dozens of articles, but none of these linked articles exist. So, thank you! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I now remember such links and how they were discouraged. I haven't encountered such in years and neglected to look at the sidebar for the addition of a link to another language. In my case, the 'tk' stood for Turkmen and, now that I've checked, did add a link to a page at Turkmen Wikipedia that was empty. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Earth AIBot Edit?
Hello,

I see you reverted my archival edit using AIBot for Earth. Could you let me know why &/or point me to the relevant MoS section so I can better understand? Thank you! 04:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Referencer12 (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There's no MoS section, strictly speaking, that deals with archiving, as the MoS deals with prose style, not citing sources. WP:PLRT (a section of the Link rot article) tells how automatic archiving takes place. Some editors run the bot and allow it to needlessly add archive snapshot links when the original is still viable. That's unnecessary, and when the bot runs itself, it only adds archive links when the original is determined to be dead. There are policies that encourage adding archive links when creating citations, which implies that individual snapshots are inspected for relevance. I revert additions when they add tens of kilobytes of text, because I don't think any policy supports such mass additions. Links sometimes die because of website reorganization, and citations with dead links should be individually inspected for that being a problem, as linking to the reorganized website is often preferable to linking to a archive. Also, when a link dies, finding a better reference might be the better choice, especially when it supports scientific, economic, or census data that is likely to be frequently superseded. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dhtwiki OK, thanks for the feedback! Referencer12 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding new content. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "African-American culture".The discussion is about the topic United States. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Shoreranger (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

March drive bling
Thanks for giving out the rest of the barnstars. All the best,  Mini  apolis  18:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Luke Ranieri citation on Latin
Hi there, you asked me to "challenge … less drastically" than removing this citation; how should I do this? I understand that the para needs a citation, but this isn't a proper source, so what should I do? Should I use "citation needed" or a different template? Thank you Jim Killock (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Citation-needed is one way, or Template:Failed verification, especially if the video doesn't support the text. Ranieri's channel gets many views and that indicates that what he says is well vetted. I'm not sure that the paragraph is supported by the video, of which I've seen only part. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's not that is inaccurate; it is that it does not itself cite further sources, and there are loads of academic sources on this topic that do. Wikipedia's source policy AIUI is about verifiability and / or methods of trust such as public accountability such as journalistic codes of practice; while popularity perhaps is an indication of accuracy it would not be proof of it. Jim Killock (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Another is Template:Better source needed. There's also pointing into the video using YouTube's timestamp function. As I recall, the video mostly outlines various eras of Latin, the broad outline of which is not what that article text is about, IIRC. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Dhtwiki (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Rosie and Jim
What contractions are you talking about? All my edit did was revert vandalism. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I reverted the wrong edit. The contractions were put in earlier (here and here). I was looking at a diff involving several edits and should have been more careful. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for clarifying. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Nonmetal
Thank you for your fine copy-editing work Dhtwiki.

Will it get in the way if I now change the article name to Nonmetal (chemistry) as proposed at the talk page? At the same time I would like to update the first sentence of the article, as also proposed at the talk page.

I would further like to:
 * revert "another noble metal, forms a yellow, strong oxide," back to "another noble metal, forms a yellow strongly oxidizing oxide," since "strong oxide" does not mean anything but "strongly oxidizing oxide" certainly does.
 * revert "chemical combinations" back to "chemical combination" since the latter form is more popular in the language of chemistry.

Thanks again --- Sandbh (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and make changes where my ignorance of chemical terms-of-art shows through, especially if you can leave summaries as to why the changes were made. I thought that "...strongly oxidizing oxide" was repetitious as well as implying that the compound was capable of further oxidization rather than being a strongly formed oxide, which is what I thought was meant. I remember that I changed to "combinations" since the plural seemed appropriate under the circumstances. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I changed the name of the article as explained, and updated the definition of nonmetal in the lede paragraph.


 * Osmium tetroxide is apparently a more powerful oxidizing agent than the halogens. It oxidises the halides (Cl-(aq), Br-(aq), I-(aq)) to their respective halogens. That's impressive. I'll add a cite.


 * "Combinations" has been changed to "combination". An understandable edit in the first place.


 * Very good to hear from you. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Dhtwiki: Thank you very much for your invaluable copyediting work. I'm chuffed with the outcome. Your methodical interest in the article inspired me to further nuance it. Thank you too for tolerating my adjustments as your work proceeded. FAC #6 ahoy! --- Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear of your satisfaction. I have had to change my copy edit regarding plutonium changing conductivity to being heated *within* a particular, as previous text had it, but which confused me and where I had changed it *to* that range, which even at the time seemed nonsensical, as -175 °C wouldn't take much heating to achieve. I have essentially changed it back. Speaking of plutonium, I now see that the periodic table that I had spotted an error in before now has duplicate atomic numbers for thorium and protactinium, with following elements up to nobelium, including plutonium, each having one a number one less than they should have. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dhtwiki. I have corrected the atomic numbering in that PT. Nice pick-up. Plutonium looks good. Sandbh (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

S-300 Copyediting
Hello!

You copyedited the S-300 missile system article somewhat recently. I tried to copyedit it myself with my limited skills, and I quickly found I bit off far more than I could chew. Seas of paragraphs were disorganized and confusing, there was a random section that linked to a single article, facts were thrown in seemingly at random, and chaos and disorder reigned supreme. I tried my best, but life got in the way, and I haven't had time to work on the article since then.

You did some great copyediting, and tangled with a lot of the backend Wikitext markup stuff that, quite frankly, terrifies me. So that I might copyedit Wikipedia more effectively in the future, I'd appreciate it if you could give me a rundown of how you copyedited the article and why.

Love, CrowEater (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note. I am glad you were satisfied with my copy edit (I don't often get feedback when I work the backlog, as opposed to requests). Looking at my diffs, I see some arrangements of sentences, but nothing was terribly incoherent about the article's arrangement to begin with. This was not a particularly unintelligible article. The article's chief contributor was a copy editor here and is a fixture on the page where featured articles are promoted.
 * However, some sentences were unclear, such as A warhead will have from 19,000 to 36,000 metal fragments, depending on missile type. Was that the number of parts? I guessed that fragments being expelled upon detonation was meant and changed the text accordingly. Someone might find that in error and change it back.
 * At one point, I thought the Russian text being quoted was in error and introduced "Флотская", but I left "Fort" as a designation (was the ship outfitted with the naval variant seen as a "fort"?). Again, that requires some possibly wrong guesswork that may be overturned in the future.
 * My work in employing templates, and other markup, is something I have done frequently and thus have the experience to do that work more efficiently than someone who is relatively new. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dhtwiki Thanks! If I ever find the time, I'll try to further improve the S-300 article. There's still plenty to do. CrowEater (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

copyediting article
Hi Dhtwiki, I'm sorry to take your time, But can you copy edit Saiyuki (manga) article? It has been a while since I expanded this article. The article is in need of very in-depth copyediting. Thanks a lot. M.A.LasTroniN910 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. I see that you've recently added that article to the requests page, which is what you should do (but you should also remember to sign your name with four tildes, both here and at requests). The article will be taken in its turn (i.e. you will have to wait awhile), and it may be another editor who copy edits it. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Screen size
You removed the image The Banjo Lesson from the music section of United States, saying that it caused the country music hall of fame snapshot to leak down into the next section on your screen. This does not occur on a standard 27" 1920px wide screen (or smaller), nor on mobile. What resolution are you using and why do you think that such unusual screens should be the standard by which is judged the choice of images? Are you sure this isn't largely a first world "issue"? :) --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have an 21" iMac from 2009, with whatever the default resolution is, although I do retain the old "wide" text format, where many have been by default changed to a narrower column-width. However, that doesn't mean that my problem is unique. And, if you have a 27" screen, you're the one with "first world" issues (as if that should mean anything). In any case, that image doesn't show the banjo clearly, it's more about two people in a room, and that's in a section about music, not about painting. Add to that that there are too many images at that article (I've removed others). I don't remember yours having been added according to consensus Dhtwiki (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not my image. It is an image made by a 19th-century American artist and is illustrative of the origins of one of the most emblematic American musical instruments.  Regarding "first world issues" I wrongly assumed you had some sort of massive monitor, my apologies, it appears you've just chosen an unusual display format. I suppose if I turned my monitor vertically I would have display issues too, though not the same ones. :) Out of curiosity, what is the advantage of "wide text format"?  --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I called it your image because you're the one championing it in this context. If the banjo is important, we should have an image of the instrument itself, whether ancient or modern. The present image isn't illustrative of the instrument's origins, because the players are in modern dress and in a modern setting. And the fact that they're black might not even be illustrative, except as how the instrument came to the U.S., as I've seen a report of the instrument being originally from Portugal (the word itself being from Kimbundu, i.e. Portuguese Angola). The "wide display" refers to Wikipedia's old format, which was changed recently, ostensibly to make line-to-line reading easier; but many complained, especially at the resultant amount of white space, and there is an option to keep the wide format. I have to assume that many have chosen that option and are encountering the same problem I am. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, so it's only a "problem" for a small subset of Wikipedia editors who have changed their preferences. I thought you were talking about a "problem" that could affect the general readership.  --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't know how small a problem it is (even if it's measurable, by counting the number of options set). The general problem, of people tending to add too many images for the text, still exists, with or without the image in question. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) {edited 09:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC))

Edit conflicts
Hello, there is edit conflicts in Lata Mangeshkar. The user named Varoon continue to revert my edit even though the sources provided does not verify his said argument I left msg in his talk page but he ignores and continues. Plz do something to solve the conflict. Its been going on for a week. Thanks! Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not been following the article too closely. I see that I recently reverted changing the infobox image to that of Mangeshkar as a juvenile, which was done without explanation and against consensus as I understand it. If you are going by the language in sources, you have firm ground to stand on. I myself don't understand why "most celebrated" is more appropriate than "greatest" (nor is the former term anything other than vague, unless define with some specificity as to what that celebratedness entails). I do remember having to make reversions based on the BBC source, when others have wanted to change the language. I'll be watching, but I won't necessarily be able to stop the conflict. When I get to reading what's at issue, I might be able to better weigh in with an informed opinion on the article talk page. Until then, you can keep reverting, warn the editor for edit warring, and even, if nothing else can stop it, report the situation to the appropriate notice board. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * His claim is "she is widely considered to be the most celebrated" which seems little exaggerated to me. Most sources does not verifies it, only some does. But it seems like he wants to carry his own opinion forward. Kindly leave a msg in his talk page if possible. Thank you for understanding. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your amazing copyedits at Charles Brenton Fisk. I am not a native English speaker so this sort of prooffreading is very difficult for me. Some editors label copyediting as a "beginner task", but I think that is furthest from the truth. Copyediting was my biggest hurdle to getting this article to GA, so you helped out a lot! Essentially, I want to say your work is valued. Cheers, Ca talk to me! 07:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post. I'm glad to hear that you appreciate my work, and copy editing in general. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar!

 * Glad to hear it! Thank you for the barnstar. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Calculation error on August blitz
Hello, I was looking at the calculations at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August 2023/Barnstars, and it seems like my rollover of 1,118 words from the June blitz was not counted. I did change my username, so perhaps that’s why. Thank you! ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw that and thought you had miscalculated somehow. I looked for your current username at the previous blitz, as well as the previous drive numbers, in case that was the cause. I didn't look for a number that matched the rollover amount you gave. I will now look for that and make the necessary corrections. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 GOCE blitz barnstar

 * Thanks from your Coordinator Emeritus for giving out the rest of the barnstars, and for coordinating in general. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Diving equipment CE
Hey Dht, just wanted to give you a heads up that I've already started working on the ce for Human Influences on Diving Equipment Design for the drive. Happy for any help or advice you'd be willing to give but wasn't sure if you had seen the revision history or not. Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw your editing but didn't realize your were a fellow copy editor. I didn't see a GOCEinuse tag, which is what I put up, mainly to warn other copy editors that the article is taken. Also, I came to it because it was still listed at drive page. That's the reason I comment out the copy editing tag at the beginning. You can go ahead, since you were there first. I've only done the lead, so far. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was sure I added it to my list at the start of the month. I didn't know about the in use tag either; I'll be sure to include it for future copyedits. Thanks for understanding, Fritzmann (message me) 15:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

John Ogilby, in the GoCE backlog, is in the DYK queue
Thank you for your kind remarks about this article. So, in case it matters, be advised that this article is in the DYK queue for publication on 17 September. I don't see that as a good reason to jump the queue, but felt it only fair to say. Feel free to just ignore this, no need to reply. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You have post
Hi Dhtwiki, I've finally emailed you the spreadsheet file of the 2023 requests I promised in this thread. I've updated it tonight so it'll be current until the bot archives another request. I hope you find it useful. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was wondering whether you had sent something that I had missed. I now have received two emails from you, which I assume represent duplication. I've imported a spreadsheet into my LibreOffice. I did ask if I could store it on-wiki; would that be permissable and useful? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, yes the emails and files are identical. Yes, feel free to store and use the spreadsheet on Wikipedia, it's all from WP anyway so the same CC-BY-SA licence applies. The bolded rows at the top are all 2022 requests processed this year. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  06:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Emperor Nero capitalization question
Sorry to bother you, but why does the following Wikipedia rule not apply to Emperor Nero? I copied this verbatim from Wikipedia's rules about capitalization of nouns. Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. '''They are capitalized only in the following cases: When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.''' Nero is his name, so why is 'Emperor' not capitalized as it precedes his name? Thank you for your time. Lime green k (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the text was "Roman emperor Nero" (description) not "Emperor Nero" (title). I indicated in my edit summary the subtle but real difference. Nero never had as a title the Latin equivalent of "Roman Emperor Nero". Dhtwiki (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Archiving live links
Hi there! Can you point me to the consensus you mentioned in this revert? I haven't heard of it before, and I'm not seeing it in Link rot or Manual of Style/Linking. I did find your post here, but that's doesn't show a consensus that would support your revert... Thanks! Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See this discussion on the talk page, where there isn't as much consensus as I imagined (which is probably why no change to the guideline has been made), but where the issues are laid out in detail. I usually don't revert unless there's a lot of text being added (your addition amounted to over 29k), which adds to download and setup time (especially on underpowered netbooks). Also, you're probably not checking for citation usefulness with such massive additions. The Link Rot policy really only justifies a prophylactic addition of a link when each original citation is made and where the editor is more likely to check for such usefulness. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are other relevant threads on that page, as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the link! If there's no consensus on the issue, I've got to question why you're reverting these edits instead of working to get a consensus one way or another... The link rot how-to guide, not policy, does not say anything in either direction about proactively adding archival links. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am working to get consensus, by involving myself in the discussions. Why do you think to add massive amounts of text to articles without pre-clearing such additions on the talk page of each article? Why is that not disruptive? If you've read the discussions, you've seen that there are others with concerns similar to mine. What do you think you're accomplishing? You're not making the archiving happen; there are often better ways of handling dead links; etc. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * From those discussions, it's clear that the practice has supporters and detractors. So the heart of my question there, albeit not phrased well, was to ask why you aren't organizing a RfC on the topic. For things like this, reverting without a basis in policy only ticks people off.
 * Disruptive editing is defined as "a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia", which pre-archiving links just plain isn't, absent a larger consensus. Plus, WP:BRD exists. Please assume good faith. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no guideline that supports what you're doing, except for a common misinterpretation of what the Linkrot guideline allows. Again, what is it that you think you're accomplishing? If you have no good idea of how you're improving the referencing of articles, then why should you be allowed to add to everyone's download and rendering times? How is such misuse of resources, in spite of several people detailing why it's a useless exercise, not be considered pure disruption? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm confused. Where, exactly, does the Link rot how-to guide or the Manual of Style/Linking guideline prohibit pre-archiving? Have I missed it? Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "pre-archiving"? Are you still thinking that what you're doing causes the archiving to happen? "WP: Link rot" not only makes it clear that that's not the case, but it also details how IABot and other bots work automatically to link to archive snapshots *only when necessary*. The Linking article mostly deals with wiki-links, not external links created through the citation templates. In any case, what part of those articles supports what you're doing? I didn't even see the text that I see as the cause of people's misconceptions during my latest quick read-through. Another point is that if I don't quickly revert such massive additions, subsequent editing will make it practically impossible to do so. That probably adds to the apparent abruptness of my reversions. Yet another point is that adding archive links makes for greater clutter that editors have to wade through, if they're editing plain text in raw editing mode (i.e. without "visual editor" or somesuch enabled). That last was actually my original objection to such additions. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly it's not a "common misconception" but just not covered in the how-to guide? If so, I'll just circle back to the RfC point I made earlier. Beyond that, I'm going to disengage from this discussion because it's way too heated for what is in the end a very small issue. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that transport of stone blocks only plays a role with..... etc.
Please comment, do you have a suggestion for different text? I think it is impo Note that transport of stone blocks only plays a role with the hypothesis where the pyramids were built with quarried stones. With the hypothesis in which the pyramids were built with cast stone (Geopolymer) there are no transport problems, because the mortar could simply be transported in small quantities. avandalen 22:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avandalen (talk • contribs)
 * In future, please indicate the article where this happened, at least, if not the actual diff, which must be this one, where I removed the following text with the edit summary of "Unexplained, dubious, argumentative, etc."


 * Note that transport of stone blocks only plays a role with the hypothesis where the pyramids were built with quarried stones. With the hypothesis in which the pyramids were built with cast stone (Geopolymer) there are no transport problems, because the mortar could simply be transported in small quantities.


 * "Unexplained" is obvious, as you left no edit summary. "Dubious" because the whole "hypothesis" of the stones being cast, instead of quarried, is a new one to me (also calling it "geopolymer" seems much too modern for the ancient Egyptians); it should be backed by strong evidence. "Note that..." is what I meant by argumentative, which makes the text less than encylopedic in tone. "Etc." is because there's possibly more to object to. Also, please make a habit of signing your name with four tildes (see Signatures). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To promote WikiLove

 * Thank you! Dhtwiki (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking for a solution
Hello Dhtwiki, I would like to bring your attention to an issue regarding an article, India national football team at the Asian Games. I've nominated the article for the DYK nomination where it has been advised to go for copyedit for which I have requested at GOCE. Though the task of copyedit has been taken by one of the participant editor, however, due to personal reason they are not able to continue the copyedit. Their response is at the talk page here. So, my humble request to you would be, kindly ask someone from GOCE to copyedit rest of the article. Will be thankful to you. Pinging, too as are coordinators of the project. Also pinging, since DYK is concerned. Thank you all. Drat8sub (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, . It's a long article, and the prose (including tone) needs a fair amount of work. After I finish what I'm doing, I can copyedit the page. All the best,  Mini  apolis  17:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made some more changes, especially with regard to references to "Asiad", which should be used, as with the Olympics, in ordinal sequence of the celebration of the Asian Games, not as an equivalent title. That is, "the Asian Games" does not equal "the Asiad"; rather, the First Asiad (1951) should refer to the first holding of the Asian Games. Even then, I find the 1951 Asian Games referred to as the "First Asian Games", not the "First Asiad", and the 2022 Asian Games referred to as the "19th Asian Games", not the "19th Asiad". As I put it in my edit summary, I haven't addressed all such misuse in the article; and I find such misuse in the Asian Games article itself. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Linkrot
This is no reason to revert. I've never read something along the lines of "If there are no dead links then don't attempt to add archived links." Of course adding them makes the page bigger in terms of size, but it's something that is done for any reasonably well-sourced article. Elizabeth II is but one example. Keivan.f Talk 11:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Adding archive links, especially massively as where I reverted, can add to delay in downloading and rendering. You can achieve the same result by running the bot often, if you so choose, and by selecting an option that only adds archive links when the originals have died. See Wikipedia_talk:Link_rot for a fuller discussion. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's greetings
 ~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

'' Hello Dhtwiki: Enjoy the  holiday season &#32;and  winter solstice  if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use to send this message. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) ''

Happy New Year Dhtwiki!


Happy New Year! Dhtwiki, Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Message clarification
Dear Dhtwiki, I wanto to clarify your message, since I was personally affected by your message:

''Your ping might not be working, as I wasn't notified of this discussion in that manner. Your argument seems motivated by the need to denigrate those who would identify as white, as many here seem also to do, as if ethnic pride is either not allowed or allowed only to certain ethnicities. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)''

At no time did I mean or want to denigrate anyone. I simply added you to the discussion because I saw that you were active in certain topics. In the article in which I included you I put figures that support that there is an error in the proportion of people that are perceived as white in Mexico, since there is a reference of 47% that is erroneous and has no support. Now why do you say I am denigrating? I appreciate you appreciating this writing and pointing out that you were mistaken.--Kodosbs (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That was here (I watch at least two articles where such issues are discussed). I was reacting to this language:


 * ...influenced by frankly racist advertising in the media and by the prejudices that Mexico still harbors against dark complexions...


 * which was part of a reference that you seemed to be preferring. That language does not seem neutral, especially as it implied that those who identify as "white", or at least light colored, are too easily influenced by others. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) (edited 22:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC))
 * Dear @Dhtwiki Thank you for addressing the reference in Spanish from the official statistics agency of Mexico. If you find any neutrality concerns,is OK for me. However, I would like to clarify that I am not the person who made the statement in question. I appreciate your understanding.
 * If you disagree and feel the need to express your concerns, please direct them to the individual involved or the official statistics agency of Mexico, as it would be more appropriate than addressing me personally.
 * Best Kodosbs (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)