User talk:Dhtwiki/Archive 4

Proposed deletion of William O'Connell (actor)


The article William O'Connell (actor) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Waggie (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Drmies (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Jupiter: in the infobox image caption
It put it in the same place it would have been in Template:Infobox using "above". I.e., below the caption, and above the rest of the box's content. The Transhumanist 21:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)]]


 * I still don't understand why your link belongs as part of the Infobox planet caption parameter, especially when you intend on adding it to the "See also" section, where I think such a link could arguably belong (although not in first position for such a new and singly edited article). Also, you placed your messages at the top of my page, which isn't where they should go. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Contents/Outlines
Each outline is intended to serve as a table of contents for the Wikipedia-wide coverage of the subject in its title. The Transhumanist 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Your particular form of outline is new to me. I'm used to navboxes and portal templates. In any case, I don't see anything that talks of the need for the sort of duplication you seem to be attempting, or of placing immature articles so prominently. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

dead link
Why did you remove the "dead link" template from at Lyndon B. Johnson? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I had a new, working URL but forgot to replace the old, dead link when I reworked the citation. I've just put in the new link. It should work now. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Latur
Hello, Would you please look up a recent change on the article of Latur? I am not sure if it is a good change or not, i mean, not sure if it should be kept, or if your previous version should be restored. Kindly let me know what to do, as I think I should it. Most of my edits are on talkpages, and very few on mainspace :-/ Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk ) 13:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

currently i contribute to wikipedia totally based on my watchlist. I want to copyedit, and improve the "unconstructive" changes on wikipedia. Is there any tool/bot/way to find unconstructive changes (dont have to be recent), or to find articles needing copyediting? I have already got permission granted for STiki, and I have barely used twinkle. But as of this moment, my laptops and desktop are down for a few days. I will get them working soon. Can you suggest me a method that I can use to find articles from computer?
 * It looks like a random rearrangement of infobox parameters—away from how they're presented at template documentation, which is the order I try to keep—with the addition of the names of two MLAs, which I would want to keep. I would revert the edit to get the parameters back in order and then add back the two MLAs. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not random. This is actually an intentional feature of the beta Visual Editor. It rearranges parameters based on the order defined in the TemplateData block in the template's documentation (in this case, Infobox settlement). See, where this was filed as a bug and declined. To prevent this from happening when editors use VE to edit articles, you have to modify the TemplateData section of the template's documentation to match the order that you want. But be forewarned: I have been verbally abused for attempting to modify the poorly documented TemplateData section, which is actually programming code, even though it is stored in the template's documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * hi,
 * PS: kindly ping me if you communicate with me. —usernamekiran  (talk ) 23:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Cromwell
Dear Dhtwiki, However "trivial" the remark may seem to you, I think it shows well enough how cynical Cromwell was about popularity. As a political leader, he was fully aware that someday admirers’ cheers might turn into shouts of hatred. Regards, --ORANSIGLOT (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I remember that you included a long quotation, which I thought was certainly WP:UNDUE for the subject at hand. I suspect that most anyone who's been an object of adulation might realize that that just makes them more likely to be hated later. There's always an appeal to the article talk page. My view on the matter doesn't necessarily represent consensus. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on North Channel Naval Duel
My apologies for the unintentional revert of your edits; my edit has now been reverted. KathrynLybarger (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Bihar
Please see WikiProject Indian cities. Also, spacing is not done by me, its based on autoformat tool.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   14:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I see your point on the use of "Transport", but why did you choose to remove "article" from the template, when that is preferred, and why did you insert spaces between title and markup, which isn't done for the rest of the article, and where such spaces are, again, apt to be remove by a bot (although I'd probably have left it alone if it were the consistent article style)? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Article? I didn't get you. I've a script in my editing box which is a jsp script to correct errors automatically accepted by wiki. It does autocorrection, I've not done any manual editing. If there is any mistake reflecting in the view, I'll check it. Cheers!-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   03:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I got it, you were referring to Main article to Main right? It was also done by the script itself. Template:Main article was redirected to Template:Main. Both are correct. But still that's not done by me wanted including spaces. I just run the script it automatically checks ans corrects errors and update per present wiki usage.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   03:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

( arbitrary break )
I have added some city in list of Bihar why remove those city name from the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monu4u1987 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summary, I reverted because a) your edits left the table out of alignment, and b) the population figures you gave for the two cities were not even close to those given by the reference used for the table (your figure for Siwan = 3,330,464, for Gopalganj = 2,562,012, versus 135,066 and 67,339, respectively, from the reference). Can you explain why your figures are at such a variance? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Still Breathing
Hey, I reverted your edit at Still Breathing because of a two reasons. Elaborating this more just in case you don't understand.

1) The source refers to the hot adult contemporary chart, which is NOT the same as the adult contemporary chart; they are two different charts. Note that the former is 40 positions and the latter is 30 positions, and are also differentiated by the fact that the former has the word "hot" in it, while the latter does not. 2) This has already be cited on the chart above it, which is Adult Top 40. The chart should be cited only once at that section.

Hope this clears up any confusion as to why I reverted your edit. If you have still have anymore queries, reply below. Thanks. Daerl (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Chev Big Block edit
Hello! I noticed that on the Chevrolet Big-Block engine page you had added back the "===" so as to make the "L18 Applications" appear in the contents. Please know that I removed them as there are no other RPO code applications that appear in the contents. For example L21, L88 etc... I was wondering - should we have all the RPO code applications in the contents? This would be difficult as the Mark I through Generation VI are organized by engine displacement. Thank you, Toneron2 (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the title because otherwise it was lost in the following paragraph and because it didn't hurt to break up the text at that point. I see that it's inconsistent with the previous sections, so it should be changed. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Tower of Terror
Source is entitled tallest "buildings", don't understand changing to "attraction".

In regards to the Tower of Terror edit. For several years (long before Mission Breakout was announced) the lead-in said "tallest attraction at the resort". It was only earlier this year that I actually changed it to "building" (since it was closed for a while). But since the ride is now an attraction again, I switched it back to what it read originally, as I thought it was applicable, and there was evidently never an issue with it before. I'm fine with it either way, but I wanted to explain my reasoning. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining. I thought that "attraction" left open the possibility that there might be taller non-attraction structures, and that "building" made for a stronger statement in that regard. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyediting of Nodar Kumaritashvili
Just want to say thanks for taking the time and effort to go through it, really appreciate it. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Fake source Chileans
First of all, Isabel Allende never say that, so delete this fake source in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Latin_American Chilean topìc, here is the truth http://elcomercio.pe/luces/libros/isabel-allende-mario-vargas-llosa-encontro-mujer-formidable-436730

— Hay una frase tuya que circula mucho el redes: "El chileno tiene un complejo de hace mucho tiempo: racialmente quiere ser Argentino y culturalmente Peruano". ¿Es tanto así? ¡Esa frase no es mía! Hay varias frases que me atribuyen y son muy inteligentes, ojalá se me hubieran ocurrido a mí. Pero esa no es mía

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.160.228.141 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2017‎ (UTC)

India
I suggest that you not make aggressive changes to India. I've stated that the reliable sources have interpreted the Indian species, the Indian peafowl, to be the bird, not the male of the species. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hannibal rising
Hello, Dhtwiki I've seen you deleted my changes on this article. As you also wrote about Unifrance, the source I put "something I never heard of", it seems very important to me to invite you to have a closer look to what Unifrance is. For it is the most official and reliable website you can expect about French films and it is linked to the CNC. Particularly for technical details such as production as they have all production documents in their hands. And Unifrance has an English version. It is at least as reliable as the BFI or the US equivalent (which I don't know, because I am French, but I'sure it is reliable !) So I made the change in the article and put the source because on that point Unifrance is very clear : it is written it is a 100 % French production (see "Technical details section"). Knowing this, do you think I can remake the correction ? Thank you for your understanding. Have a good day, Herve.toullec (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For one thing, your edits were unexplained (a couple seemed to involve a self-reversion); for another, you removed a reliable source, Variety, without saying why. I would probably have been alright with the of Unifrance, if you had explained it in your edit summary. Leave the Variety reference in place, unless you have a good reason for its removal. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dhtwiki (talk, Indeed, there are sometimes mistakes in Variety articles for details such as countries of production as they generally don't bring much attention to these items. This one lists the US among them but I can't find any US production company involved and Unifrance only lists 4 countries http://en.unifrance.org/movie/28192/hannibal-rising So it seemed to me a good enough reason to remove it. See the "Technical details" section. It has an English version. Herve.toullec (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal preferences
Regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=prev&diff=800162169

You may want to consider the fact that your personal preferences are not shared by others. Ohms law (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

UC, Berkely
Dhtwiki, the default size for Template:Infobox university is 150px. Instead of reverting for 'unexplained', had you looked at the difference between my edit and the previous edit, you would have seen that there was no difference at all. It takes two seconds to compare the two revisions and you won't have to deal with others coming to your talk page to explain why it was removed. You could have even gone into my contributions to see what I had been doing. Not everything requires an edit summary. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 15:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You could have left a brief summary to that effect, and that would have saved us all this trouble. Plus, you took out the parameter, rather than leaving it blank, in case someone did want to change the image size. Not every edit needs a summary, but in this case it would have helped. Why is the burden on me to remember default image sizes, or make comparisons, or examine your contributions? And why bring it up now? Days ago, someone else restored your edit with a summary that explained it. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Peacock Throne copyedit
Hi Dhtwiki,

Before you proceed, could you please check this edit right before you started and restore it, it looks like a large chunk of information was just taken out. The article unfortunately seems to be prone to vandalism. Thank you very much. Gryffindor (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I took a look, and what seems to have been deleted is some pretty descriptive language that had been marked—via hidden, HTML comments—as unsourced and exaggerated, which it seems likely to be a correct assessment. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Accusations
I've only just noticed that last year you appear to accuse me of some pretty serious stuff. I'd probably ignore it except for the fact that you have just returned to that particular talk page. Please don't accuse me of things about which, it would seem, you know little. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Apology
I owe you - and also 104.218.80.10 if that wasn't you as well - an apology for having got the rubber bridge scoring wrong. My only excuse is that it's a very long time since I played rubber bridge rather than Chicago. JH (talk page) 21:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The IP editor was someone else. The article wording was somewhat confusing and needed to be rewritten anyway. At first I though you were saying you had played bridge in Chicago, where they make their own rules, which are different. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

US article contribution/excellent work
Many thanks my friend, for your genuine interest, contribution and efforts in bringing back this page to its true form. You were one of the few editors who listened to my argument fully and maintained a professional level of patience with my practical learning. I truly appreciate the time and patience you've put into this consensus, as well as the coaching of my editing form.

I owe you one. Thank you. NocturnalDef (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC) NocturnalDef (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan
Hello! Recently, I have nominated an article for copy editing and I have seen that you copy edit articles. If you have an interest in taking a look at the article, please do so. If possible, I would be so grateful. (Harut111 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC))


 * I appreciate your asking me, and I have had a look. The article looks to be in pretty good shape, but it does require some work. However, it's unnecessary to ask individual copy-editors once you've requested a copy-edit for the article from the guild. I am not the likeliest editor to perform that copy-edit at the moment. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Chrysler Building Revert
I'm surprised you reverted an edit designed to archive citations so the article will not develop link rot. I'd hardly call this practice adding "deadweight" to the article. But there you go. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I was surprised it was you I had to revert, as a main objection I have is that adding reference text makes it more difficult for copy-editors to find the plain text they're interested in. They'd have more need of some sort of parsing, probably using javascript, which slows things down. WP:LINKROT is often quoted as giving leave for what you're doing, but that policy refers to editors who are references, and thus are implicitly evaluating the reference's appropriateness. Those using automated tools to make massive changes are unlikely to be doing that most important task. Setting up archive-snapshot links isn't even necessary to alert the archive that a snapshot is wanted, as that can be, and is being, done by monitoring the original linking. There is considerable discussion on this topic here. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Considerable discussion and strong points on both sides, but no consensus for sure. There are c/e request users who routinely use this tool, or archive every URL manually, and I do not find it difficult to c/e their articles. I'll have to think some more about this.Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)