User talk:Dhtwiki/Archive 3

Hello
Hello God bless Slavic7 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Political descriptions in the United States article.
I'm not understanding your active opposition to anything I propose on this. We've worked together well on other issues. Maybe we can reach some kind of agreement on this one. My problem with the current language is that "conservative" and "liberal" mean completely different things in different national/historical contexts and that readers from large chunks of the world will be misled by those orphaned labels, most likely into thinking that Democrats are the free market party in the "liberal" international sense (like the Australian Liberals). Meanwhile "conservatives" can refer to anything from monarchists to theocrats to communists, depending on what part of the world you're in. If we're going to keep "conservative" and "liberal" we need some type of clarifying explanation. What my edit added (to answer your edit summary) was this clarification. Readers from around the planet could see that and go, "Oh, so in America the liberals are the left leaning ones while the conservatives are the center right types" without actually having to use "center left" or "center right" since others objected to those specific terms. I removed the tag because it was added a long time ago by someone for vague, illegitimate reasons (I think they wanted to call Republicans "far right" instead of "conservative" or something inane and partisan like that) and was never connected to an actual talk page section like it was supposed to be. By all rights it should be removed anyway, but I sort of like having it there now since I object to not having some type of ideological explanation there like other important country profile articles do for their politics. Since my concerns would have been addressed, and I've seen no others raised on that segment in months, I figured we could finally delete the tag instead of having "disputed" sitting there permanently. May I ask why you object, and if you'd be willing to reconsider or at least offer an alternative solution? VictorD7 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm usually grateful for your energetic involvement, but this time I thought you were unnecessarily making an edit that had been a bone of contention, and where I saw no reason for additional wording (never mind my constant complaint that the article is too large already with far too many sources and their CPU-intensive javascript) without discussion, especially when EllenCT, for whatever reasons, has been recently refraining from any further amendments on her part. For that reason, if nothing else, her "disputed" tag should not be removed without discussion, although I don't support what I perceive as her reason for placing it—that Republicans are characterized too leniently by being labeled "conservative". Dhtwiki (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you summoned Ellen back to the talk page. I know you were just being conscientious, but she's the most disruptive, propaganda driven editor in Wikipedia history, and the article has been chugging along relatively smoothly in her absence the past few months. If she does return it will be your responsibility to take the lead on cleaning up whatever tangential messes she decides to create while there. I've already gone above and beyond the call of duty on that score.


 * Back on topic, there's no comparison between conservatives (broadly defined, including libertarians) and liberals when it comes to the scope of desired government involvement. Conservatives spend much of their time and intellectual energy talking about the constitution, limited government, individual liberty, and supporting the free market, which is limited government by definition. They view government as a necessary evil. Liberals are more likely to view government as an inherent good, which is why we get Obama giving speeches with themes of "you didn't build that", promoting big, active government as a force for positive change. Liberals want an expansive regulatory state while conservatives spend most of their time complaining about such a regulatory state. Liberals spend much of their energy attacking the private sector ("evil" business men) while conservatives praise entrepreneurs. Liberals don't think regular citizens should be trusted to own firearms (or start countless businesses without licenses, from manufacturing to children's lemonade stands), while conservatives do. Liberals strive to criminalize what they consider to be poor dieting and other lifestyle choices, while conservatives say such things are none of the government's business. Liberals want a much greater percentage of national GDP to be controlled by the government, favoring much higher taxes and spending than conservatives do, ostensibly for the purpose of resource redistribution. Liberals describe tax cuts as an "expense", while conservatives say that they're just letting the people who earned it keep more of their own money. The one area where conservatives do typically favor higher spending, the military, only accounts for about 20% of the federal budget. The other 80% consists almost entirely of items liberals want to expand spending on. That conservatives favor a strong national defense only underscores the more limited role they believe government should have, one mostly limited to its primary purpose of establishing physical security.


 * My edit used "rhetorically" twice in a preemptive attempt to avoid anyone coming along and claiming that Republicans don't really stand for individual liberty and/or liberals don't really stand for economic equality. That debate aside, both sides undeniably focus their energy talking about and claiming to support those things, respectively. I used it twice because I was bending over backwards to be neutral, listing the same number of items for each side in a mirrored style.


 * Remember what TVH said about the nature of Wikipedia consensus in the Hawaii discussion. The goal is to at least try to address every editor's concerns to a reasonable degree when possible. My concerns here are serious, informed, and well founded. I'm extremely flexible and can envision numerous solutions, but the status quo is unacceptable. We can't rely on readers to click those links for more information when they've been given no reason to be aware that they should.  The segment is misleading in an international context.  Isn't there any possible compromise you can find acceptable that would address my concerns? VictorD7 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied
Hi Dhtwiki, I accept that some of the information added to the page Cartagena, Colombia, needs some citation, but I added info. in different topics on the page, I think some information might be useful and that info. like main urban avenues have no citation because is local information, however, i'm new here, thank you! Ctg15 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. The main thing you did wrong was not so much the adding of unsourced information, as there may be plenty of unsourced statements, but the unjustified removal of the "citation needed" template, which called for better sourcing. I reverted all of your edits, though, because they all seemed unsourced, and I didn't want to add to those already there. Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced in some way, although it often isn't. Also, you'll want to learn to add your talk page replies to the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes ( ~ ). Dhtwiki (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Saudi kings religion
Hi, have you read the Hanbali article? Just a sourced extract from the article: "The Hanbali school was the forerunner of the Wahhabi-Salafist movement.[9] Historically the school was small; during the 18th to early-20th century Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Al Saud greatly aided its propagation around the world.[9]". Also, see. I think that with that info its crystal-clear that the members of the Saud royal family are members of that school (Just as the Iranian leaders -Khomeini & Khamenei- are Usuli Twelver Shiites), otherwise that would be stated.-- HC PUNX  KID 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Where is the source that connects King Abdullah himself with that particular religious identity? As king, and perhaps especially as guardian, he would likely want to be seen as supportive of as broad a range of sects and schools as possible, rather than being identified with just one. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to state that you think that a concrete source is needed, just say it, but let's be clear, anyone who knows a little about the Saud royal family knows that they are not only officially Wahhabis, but the main worldwide propagators of that religious identity, as its clearly stated with sources on the Hanbali, Wahhabism, House of Saud articles. Even some times the terms Saud & Wahhabi are used as synonyms, as for example on the Ottoman–Wahhabi War article. So saying that Saudi rulers are Wahhabis is not an opinion, but a fact.-- HC PUNX  KID 16:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And if you really think that Saudi kings want to be seen as supportive of as broad a range of sects and schools as possible, perhaps you should read the Shia Islam in Saudi Arabia article to change your view...-- HC PUNX  KID 16:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I had checked the articles for mention of Abdullah, but not Saudi kings in general. You haven't yet pointed to the specific article or source that describes Abdullah as you wished to label him. I also think that the infobox should reflect the text, and I looked for, but couldn't find, some detail on his religious adherence. However, I think such further discussion should take place on the article talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ehmmm, Its not a personal wish, its a fact. All the articles I put upwards point in the same direction, but still you talk about a specific source. No offence, but it seems to me that you want to avoid including that...-- HC PUNX  KID 10:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Finally, sources given.-- HC PUNX  KID 10:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You're killing me, lol.
In the past you've supported using "center-left" and "center-right". Can you please just indicate your acceptance of restoring those terms? That's all I want out of this discussion. People as ideologically diverse as me, TVH, and Golbez all coming together and agreeing on that point is a big deal, a breakthrough long in coming. You'd still be free to push for total deletion and/or other changes, and, since your support would give inclusion an effective consensus at this point, I'd be done messing with that segment and out of your way. VictorD7 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Not even sure how this goes anymore. I hope I'm doing this right. The old memory isn't cranking as well as it was a decade ago. I just went to the Shinobido article and I see that you're the vigilant guardian I wish I could still be on Wikpedia doing this in 2016. I just want to say thank you. My crowning glory on Wikipedia was the "Battle of Red Cliffs" article, but Shinobido was my baby and my pet project. Thanks for keeping it together, Dhtwiki. :) The Cake is a Lie  T /  C 09:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I recently copy-edited it and have kept it on my watchlist. There are still some issues, according to the tags; some of which I might be able to work on, but also some that might require the help of someone more knowledgeable about the game than I. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Mark Twain and citation in 'Love of science and technology section'm
Hi! I had been looking at the request made by User:CRCulver to change the citation used for the last sentence in the Love of Science and technology section that you had subsequently edited. I reverted an then removed the citation completely. There turns out to be more of a problem than I initially thought. Both the original citation redirected to a film clip of Twain by Edison; neither was a WP:RS and the clip is already available from an image of the first frame of the clip placed in the article lede. That clip is on WikiCommons, but the problem there is that uTube is credited as the source, so there the reader must contend with uTube ads. I placed a list of what I believe the minimum solution as a comment in the Mark Twain talk page (delayed considerably by an edit conflict that through my carelessness deleted my somewhat long post, but it is there in a shortened version. — Neonorange (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

ADD MORE INFORMATION ON MAHESH BABU WIKEPEDIA THIS IS ORIGINAL INFORMATION YOU CAN REFER WEBSITES I AM GIVING YOU LINKS BELOW
Mahesh is the only South Indian hero who has five films which collected more than $1 million dollars at the United States Boxoffice. He is the Highest earning South Indian celebrity for the year 2015 with his earnings at 51.5 crore described in the Forbes magazine. He was the national brand ambassador for Thums up. He has a Significant following In South India and overseas regions. He started a Production house G. Mahesh Babu Entertainment Pvt. Ltd In the year 2014. He is described In the media as one of the most attractive Celebrities Of India. His films Okkadu (2003), Athadu (2005), Pokiri (2006), Dookudu (2011), Businessman (2012), Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu (2013) and Srimanthudu (2015) rank among the highest grossing Telugu movies in their years.

WEBSITE LINKS:.

Indian National Congress
Please check talk page on Indian National Congress. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Remember that I'm not quarreling with your challenging the text, except that the template you placed, where it was, made the sentence unnecessarily hard to read, and that there was a nonsensical (mostly hidden) element in that template. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand. Question is whether we keep the phrase "democratically run" in the lede. ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The citation that's there doesn't talk about "oldest" or "democratically" (so the "failed verification" template, probably). How do you define those terms, and are there sources that support those descriptions? Of course, I'm waiting for others, who have better knowledge of the situation, to show up at the article talk page. Is the lead based on anything in the body of the article that supports it? If not, you have reason to modify that sentence considerably. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Henry VIII
Hello. Do you realize that there is a contradiction in what you wrote about Henry VIII' s excommunication? The latter took place on 17 December 1538, the Peter's Pence Act was passed in 1534. How could the second be a consequence of the first? NONIS STEFANO (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My quarrel was with the way you said it (wordy, changed wiki-linking, etc.), as much as what you said. I see that you just had a now too-succinct attempt reverted. We should be discussing this on the article talk page at this point. Do you have a source for what you want to say? The text you changed had at least one source supporting it. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Chaudhry Naseer Ahmad Malhi
Hi DHtwiki - I have received your message regarding an article on Chaudhry Naseer Ahmad Malhi which states that I have removed certain content without citing a reason. To begin with, please accept my apologies for not being up to speed with the process on Wikipedia but I will ensure the necessary steps going forward. In particular response to the question on why certain content was removed, please note the email that was sent out on the email address below. I also include the content of the email which explains why the changes were made.

info-en-q@wikimedia.org Dated:May 20th 2016

I write to you with regards to an article published on Wikipedia about Chaudhry Naseer Malhi on the link below. I am Naseer Malhi's grandson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaudhry_Naseer_Ahmad_Malhi

While we appreciate the tremendous efforts of Wikipedia to accurately record history and make it available to public, we note an explicit error in the article which despite having corrected myself and requesting correction seems to emerge again.

Chaudhry Naseer Malhi's religion is stated in the article as "Ahmaddi" which is factually incorrect. While his father Chaudhry Ghulam Haider Malhi did extend donations to minorities including Ahmaddis, Christians and Sikhs, Naseer Malhi was never associated to Ahmaddi faith in any capacity. While generally regarded as a liberalist with little inclination towards any particular religion in his life, he considered himself a sunni muslim. Furthermore, his "final rites" and funeral following his death were also performed according to Sunni faith. His associaton to Ahmaddi community therefore seems to be extremely misrepresented.

We, the family, would appreciate if the article is corrected and represents pure facts. We are happy to assist on this matter any further or provide additional details as you may require. I am also happy to provide evidence, if needed, to demonstrate relationship with the subject.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.232.108.180 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My objection was to removing material without an explanation in the edit summary, especially that which has a citation and thus seems reliably sourced. I don't know when the material was added or by whom (although I could find out), nor can I give an opinion of the validity of the source; so I won't further contest the edit. However, for the future, please consider better explaining your edits at the time that they are made. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

New edits to "List of sovereign states ... by area"
Hello. My edits (6/4/2016) are correct. The same original sources in the article. There are updated data. Look the sources. Thanks. Cgx8253. 6/7/2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgx8253 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * First, would you please add posts to the bottom of talk pages and sign with four tildes? Then, I noticed that your reference to the online Encyclopedia Britannica was in error as that source spoke of only three countries. I haven't checked your other figures. It's unlikely that area changes like population does, and the sources haven't been updated on the page. You also fussed with country rank (left-hand column) in a way that left it out-of-sequence, which may have encouraged another editor to start adding fractions. There is a comment on the page—especially for China and the U.S., I think—to discuss changes to those countries on the talk page first. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

'Rosie & Jim' edit
Hi, Dhtwiki

I received your message about the removal of recent 'Rosie & Jim' content which was the Video Fun Pack. I only removed it because it was displayed on the same page twice with different dates of release; hence why I removed only that. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.249.170 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

12 Years A Slave (Critical Response section)
Hello, back on Nov 17 2015 you erased my contribution, claiming the review I cited was not from a "necessarily reliable source"? The A.V. Club is a very reputable, prominent entertainment-focused website with an especially well-respected film criticism team whose reviews are consistently used on Metacritic. At least two of their critics, including the one I quoted from - Ignatiy Vishnevetsky - are asked to participate in those prestigious decennial Sight & Sound polls. I don't know how much more legit/reliable you can get. And since the overwhelming number of cited reviews were positive, I thought Vishnevetsky had a worthwhile dissenting opinion, which would have enhanced the section after three paragraphs of unqualified praise. --Algernon333 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I gave "Unduly lengthy quote" as the main reason for my reversion. If you could cut out some of the quote or justify its length, I don't see any objections otherwise. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and put your contribution back. The quote length didn't seem long when compared to the other reviews quoted in that section. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Further Information
Hi Dhtwiki. A referenced link for Further Information is justifiable. Per your deletion that (Misplaced; table is outside timeline for this section) is not accurate. Eleven items fall within 1776-1865 dates. Why the reluctance to give concise information, that is not attainable on the present page (where it belongs)?

I'm trying to get an understanding about the inner workings of Wikipedia. At this point, your deletion seems like edit warring. Is any editor allowed to simply delete based on his/her ideas of what they want on a page. I did not add another table to the page, based on consensus, rather only made reference, so that is outside of the discussion. Your deletion is simply unilateral.  Kamel Tebaast  16:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Several editors have weighed in on the fact that your table is inappropriate for the article. If people object, as they have, you have to accept the fact that there isn't support for your addition. If you can't change it to make it palatable (making the table larger isn't the way to go), then it isn't going to be added. I've made clear my view, which seems shared by others, that your table is too much detail that is well-handled elsewhere. And we already have a link from the Geography section to articles that deal with territorial expansion, which might be where your table belongs. You don't seem to be very involved in the ongoing discussion on the US talk page, which is where most of this needs to be decided. It's not going to be decided here. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You've just detailed why the Table does not belong on the page, which I am not questioning nor am I interested in adding (at this time). I'm asking why you deleted the Further information link (not the Table).  Kamel  Tebaast  17:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Because it was in the wrong place. The independence and expansion section deals with the period up to 1865, and your table includes events well after that. Besides I think that a direct reference to just your table from anywhere in the main US article is wrong when there are more detailed articles linked to from the geography section. I think that your table belongs as a possible summary of one of those articles, within the article itself, not as a separate article (I wouldn't be surprised if that bare table isn't recommended for deletion or merging eventually). Dhtwiki (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Serial comma
I'm with you on that. But Walter is a good force at moslink, so I don't want to go reverting his revert at this stage. Tony  (talk)  08:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Distributed file system for cloud
My edits to Distributed file system for cloud fixed the red chapter errors in the citations. If you scroll to the bottom of the article, you should see a bunch of red error messages that indicate that the citations are not displaying as intended. For example, in the citation that begins "Zhang, Qi-fei", the name of the conference proceedings is in quotation marks, then a mangled version of the name of the conference proceedings is in italics, and the name of the paper being cited is missing, with a red error message at the end of the citation indicating that something is wrong.

Changing the citations to cite book fixed those problems. I removed the redundant mangled titles and made the paper titles display properly. Cite book seemed appropriate since the sources in question have ISBNs, a feature of books.

Was there something wrong with the resulting formatting? I thought it looked much better when I was done.

Also note that in reverting my edit, you reverted other constructive edits, like adding a missing paper title ("Efficient metadata management in large distributed storage systems"), adding a space between "San Diego," and "CA", and fixing typos like "netowrks". I recommend that you revert your revert and then proceed from there if you want to use a different cite template (like cite conference), otherwise you will have to re-fix all of the content edits that I made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I did see, and keep, the San Diego edit, but not the others. Your edit did away with a considerable amount of information (in periodical, etc., parameters) that I didn't see as redundant. Because there were DOIs for most-to-all of the affected citations, I took the material in question to be papers given at conferences, which might have been made into book chapters, but not necessarily all (the URL in all that I tried led to a University of Lille site that was both in French and inaccessible unless a password was given). The "chapter" errors are a nuisance but don't affect anything other than appearance. The main reason I reverted was the potential loss of information. Did you check to see that what was removed was redundant? I'd rather have the error messages (which themselves were created by a clumsy bot that previously went through and changed a lot), than potentially losing periodical information that might give clues as to how to redo the citations. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I checked every single citation before removing redundant information. The periodical parameters held messed up versions of the conference proceedings names, which were correct in title. Here is one citation as an example. Compare the original version:




 * With the version after I fixed the article:




 * In the first version (your preferred version), the name of the paper is missing, and the title parameter holds the name of the conference proceedings, which is incorrectly shown in quotation marks instead of italics. The periodical parameter also holds the name of the conference proceedings, but in an upside-down format. And there is a red error message, which hints at the reason for the name of the paper being missing.


 * In the second version (my fixed version), the name of the paper is displayed (in quotations, appropriately), and the name of the conference proceedings shows in italics. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing Information that Helps the User
Hey, I've noticed that you've removed a couple of items that is informative to the user. Please look up item first in a primary source before changing articles.

Thanks! Seetler (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reformatting of the Mason Report ref
I've copy/pasted it into at least other article so far (that on Mason). I am getting old and lazy when it comes to ref formatting. Thanks again. Juan Riley (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Lata mangeshkar
Kindly delete the womans day song news as she has not recorded that. Mayuresh20 (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that you've already deleted it and substituted some more unsourced material. Is this your facebook page? If so, you must have considerable familiarity with this singer. However, information should be as much as possible sourced to published accounts. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nueva Ecijano =/= Novo Ecijano
First, the IP edit isn't mine, must be from someone from the same network as I do. I used to monitor Wiki articles too so I know this commonly happens.

You seem to have erroneously reverted an edit that changed "Nueva Ecijanos" to "Novo Ecijanos". However, the latter is actually the correct way to refer to a person living in the province of Nueva Ecija. You can check other sources if you'd like. You might want to rectify your correction. That's all, and thank you for your active contributions to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.207.234 (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I see now that "Novo Ecijano" is listed as a demonym at the province's article. I did not know that and I should have labeled it a good faith edit, rather than "possible vandalism", as I did in my edit summary. However, the text reads, After the retreat, Llanera, Tinio, and other Nueva Ecijano commanders..., where "Nueva Ecijano" may well refer to the province, not the people. If the wording had been "...and other commanders of the Nueva (or Novo) Ecijanos...", then the reference is more certainly to people. Also, introducing the demonym without explaining it might be confusing, and trying to explain it for that one instance is probably unwarranted in such a short article. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baghpat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ghaziabad district. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ambrose Bierce's writings
About the Ambrose Bierce Wikipedia page, Dhtwiki wrote: "restoring old section title ("Bibliography" -> "Works"), as "bibliography" usually relates to references section and modern scholarship, not the author's own works".

You work with Wikipedia far more than I do, so I'm eager for your ideas to improve my additions. Would you please point out Wikipedia pages of writers in which a "Bibliography" section "relates to references section and modern scholarship, not the author's own works"? I'd be grateful for example pages I can use as models.

I had intended to expand the section listing Bierce's prolific writings and turn the section into a separate "Ambrose Bierce bibliography" Wikipedia page, using these writer pages for guidelines and inspiration:
 * 1) Mark Twain bibliography
 * 2) Ernest Hemingway bibliography
 * 3) H. P. Lovecraft bibliography
 * 4) Rudyard Kipling bibliography
 * 5) Joseph Conrad bibliography
 * 6) Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography
 * 7) Herman Melville bibliography
 * 8) Ray Bradbury bibliography
 * 9) Frank Herbert bibliography
 * 10) Flannery O'Connor bibliography
 * 11) Edgar Rice Burroughs bibliography
 * 12) William Faulkner bibliography
 * 13) Saul Bellow bibliography

But perhaps I should rethink my plan. In any case, I will be glad to have any suggestions you might have. Thank you. Vince Emery 21:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of pages where "Bibliography" is used in the References section to list works that are cited for the article and the potential for confusion if you were to use it as a section title. See this Manual of Style section: ... however, "Bibliography" is discouraged because it is not clear whether it is limited to the works of the subject of the article. You have found that it's OK when a separate article is entitled "...bibliography". So, what you intend there doesn't need to be rethought. It seems to me to be just an inconsistency. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your reference to the Manual of Style section has been helpful. Thank you. Vince Emery 15:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bihar. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Have no idea why you got templated. In case, if you aren't aware, FYI, that editor was sock who made arbitrary edits and after you raised it on his talk, I too cross questioned him and get minimal response beyond WP:IMRIGHT. I've reverted him only on Kerala and Maharashtra on which I worked on. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Lyndon B. Johnson
The march was not led by PL and SDS. They had positioned themselves at the front of the march. The organizers of the march and the appointed monitors intended the march to go past the hotel not stop there. It was because some of the marchers stopped that LAPD became fearful, that the crowd might storm the hotel (the faulty intelligence), and the police riot ensued. Please check out the sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that now, especially with your latest additions, you've got too much detail on this particular march for an article on LBJ. It could be cut down considerably by deleting sentences that don't directly tell of the march's importance in the anti-war movement or Johnson's perception of it, while keeping most or all of the references (minus long quotes about the march's unfolding drama). Dhtwiki (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the thing. In trying to respond to your edits, which significantly changed the narrative, and support that response, much more detail results. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)