User talk:Dhtwiki/Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pieve Vergonte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marius ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pieve_Vergonte check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pieve_Vergonte?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

advice needed
Hi, you took off comments I made about a steampunk book citing lack of source. i'm new here tbh and don't know how to add a source. Can you offer simple explanation? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrysambrosius (talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for, say, a review of the book (if that is what you tried to add) that describes it as "steampunk". You could look at the raw markup of other entries in that section, to see how sources are cited. You could put a crude citation between reference tags and I can put it in more finished form. I'm just looking for something other than your own opinion. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Nodar Kumaritashvili
Just want to say thanks for all your work on the article to get it to FA status. Without your constant edits, I don't think it would have happened this time. Truly appreciate it. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Smith & Wesson model 29
Hi there, I just modified your edit of mine at Dirty Harry. One para that you thought deleted was not, so then it appeared twice! For the material on the revolver, the reference given was not accessible, but I found a reference for the same subject in the Smith & Wesson model 29 article and substituted that. Much of the rest had nothing to do with the film and so was WP:OFFTOPIC. I hope we can agree on this. I've been editing on WP for a long as you, though under a different name for most of that time; us senior editors ought to be able to get along. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Frost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Thomas ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Robert_Frost check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Robert_Frost?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Indianapolis
all the information I cited comes from interviews with Stephen Spielberg himself so cannot be argued with, as for relevance on this page, I just thought it was nice to have some back story about such as significant speech in movie history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilfordBoy1991 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , I meant for you to discuss this on the article talk page, and to get consensus there. What you're adding is suitable for the film, where it is already, apparently well sourced. Part of the problem at the ship article is that your account cites no source, as well as that it's possibly too much detail. Also, please sign your posts with tildes. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Retina
Hi User:Dhtwiki. Thanks very much for making the effort to copyedit Dhtwiki. I just wanted to mention: I have a good understanding of both the clinically-relevant but also technical aspects of the retina, so please feel free to message me if you want my opinion on anything. If I may, I'd like to offer this suggestion:
 * The most important function of the retina is it's ability to convert light from our environment into an electrical signal for processing in our brain. I think it's important to really focus on this in opening line of the article, rather than "The retina (from Latin rēte, meaning "net") is the innermost, light-sensitive coat, tunic, or layer of shell tissue of the eye of most vertebrates and some molluscs, tissue that also consists of the uvea and fibrous tunic.". Most of the information in this sentence will be completely unhelpful for readers trying to develop the most basic and fundamental understanding of the topic. If I were learning about the Retina for the first time, the concepts of "coat", "tunic", "shell tissue", "molluscs", "uvea" and "fibrous tunic" would be very distracting and quite unrelated to what I'm trying to learn. I would principally focus on what key function the retina serves, from the outset.

Thank you again for your excellent work. You have significantly more experience copy editing than me so you're very welcome to disagree and disregard with my comments above about the opening line.

Thank you, Jkokavec (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've just streamlined the lead paragraph to accommodate your suggestions. I've retained "coat" (placed in quotation marks) because it's a technical term often used and its appropriateness here wasn't readily apparent to me. I think it's important to recognize the the retina is common to a certain large set of other animals and that we're not just talking about the human eye, but that this structure isn't found in all other animals. I did, however, remove much of what you found irrelevant. I also placed a couple of "clarification needed" templates, to be addressed by you, or anyone else with expertise, or myself, if I have the time to research what exactly is meant. I will plan to use those templates more liberally now and you should feel free to address the issues raised before my copy-editing is done. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

LBJ Infobox Picture
Hi, I saw you removed the infobox picture I added to Lyndon B. Johnson on the grounds that the image was "overexposed". Would you mind elaborating on this? I wanted to hear your thoughts before making my case on the talk page. Thanks! Emiya1980 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * LBJ's left cheek and ear seem more washed out (i.e. overexposed) in the photo you put up, but just slightly so. However, there was also the fact that you'd already been reverted and merely put the image back up. It's time to discuss, if you want to change the image. Personally, I see no reason to prefer your photo over what's already there. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Warring Edit and Pob3qu3 have used constantly hoax in mexico articles
Greetings I know that a warring edit is being developed, but the problem is that it is not only my part, since the user Pob3qu3 involved does not want to argue, the user does not want to prove the veracity of their sources, generating hoax and so I can Seeing you are on the side of him and want to keep the edition to his preference, the user Pob3qu3 that you defend so much has received many calls for attention but still does not care and does not like to reach agreements except his own opinion and Pob3qu3 only cares about vandalizing all articles that have to do with mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignorantes22 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I just left a reply on your talk page. Let's continue the discussion there if you want. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Earth
The access date parameter is not required for books. Dawnseeker2000  01:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * That page doesn't say anything about access-date parameters being unnecessary, it just implies they're not typically included; and there's nothing suggesting it's proper to remove those already there. Those cites all had links and the page tells how the parameter is helpful in locating the right archive snapshot if that's necessary. I find access-dates useful in determining how recently I created or checked a citation, even if there's no link rot to undo. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds fine. Citation bot removes the access date parameter under certain conditions from cite book and cite journal. Dawnseeker2000  05:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that means it's OK to revert your revert. I think citation, or some other, bot removes acess-date parameters when there is a DOI parameter present in a citation of a periodical. That's the only policy of automatic removal I'm aware of. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert you and come here to explain myself only to be reverted. :| Dawnseeker2000  06:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't given a rationale for removing those access-date parameters, or, rather, the article you linked to doesn't support removal. Why shouldn't they be restored? You seemed to be using AWB. Did that have anything to do with removing the parameters automatically? Dhtwiki (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

St. George's School
Thank you. I was going to correct the article but I realized that I didn't know whether the third floor of Old School is still dorm space. I graduated almost 40 years ago. Best, JTRH (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Whats wrong...
...with had been? --Saqib (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If you say "...a Pakistani politician who had been a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan from June 2013 to May 2018", you are saying he no longer was a member during that time, when what you are obviously wanting to say is that that was his term as a member. "Had been" is "past perfect" tense, where the action has been completed by the time mentioned in the sentence. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 GOCE drive bling
A well-deserved five leaderboard awards! Thanks for helping to bring the copy edit backlog to a new all-time low! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Great editor
Just wanted to say good job on your recent edits! Quite happy with them and how they improved the article. Mikecurry1 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Cheers

Request for copy editing
I need you to make copy edits to the articles WBKO and WNKY. Issues include overlinking, redundant info, paragraph length, etc. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I see that they've been marked as needing copy editing via the standard "copy edit" template. That means they're on the backlog, where copy editors are just now trying to finish up October 2017, if I'm not mistaken. Individual copy editors don't usually take requests for individual articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE Blitz bling
Nice 10k! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Spartacus good faith edit
I see that you reverted my proposed edit to the Spartacus (film) page. I know this is trivial nerdiness on my part, but I'd like to point out that the story of John F. Kennedy going to see Spartacus at a Washington DC theater is detailed in Paul B. Fay, Jr.'s memoir "The Pleasure of His Company" (1966). In his telling, Fay makes it clear that JFK is already President when this happens, and there's no indication that JFK had already seen this film as President-elect. There's also the issue of the NY Times dateline: February 1961. (Also, I find it hard to believe that JFK would cross an American Legion picket line in 1960 or '61, but I have no evidence one way or the other.) Joseph Angier 7/01/2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeangier (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That text talks of JFK's going to see the film having political significance (i.e. crossing the picket line) which the Times ref. doesn't mention (but the FIU ref. does, IIRC, while describing JFK as president-elect). Unless you can find a source that pinpoints this better or are able to discredit the FIU ref as a source, I just don't think we have enough to change the description of JFK to "president", rather than p.-elect. The Times story seems to be pointing out what a "just folks" sort of man Kennedy was in wanting to go out to see a movie with some pals. Why wouldn't the paper mention the significance of crossing picket lines if that actually happened when he was president (although, it's possibly more likely he'd do such a thing once ensconced in power)? Dhtwiki (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

WLA
Hello, in my edit of WLA or White Latin Americans, I only added another source for Mexico and Paraguay, I dont know why is necesary revert them, I explained also my edits in the bar of "submit". Thanks for understard. Good Day. --Nance 47 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Another editor has been reverting your edits. As the initiator of change, per WP:BRD you should discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. --Nance 47 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks/good catch on the Buckley
Totally missed that mention before where I made the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.84 (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Divine Revert
Hello,

I believe this is the commentary that I referred to. I don't know what else to say besides in the commentary Waters says that he could not believe he was able to convince Divine to say her legal name on camera. It's a rather obscure piece of cinema history. He says the referred quip between deleted scenes.

Link: http://www.ratethatcommentary.com/detail.php/318

Dondu Muffin (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I just undid my revert and supplied the reference. I further copy edited for conciseness. Note that the article employs the male pronoun when referring to Divine. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Dondu Muffin (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I made an edit to GOCE-d article "Elementary comparison testing"
Hi! Just wanted to apologize for having mistakenly made a (minor) edit to Elementary comparison testing while under GOCE. I reverted it right away once I noticed the banner. I apologize!

Commevsp (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Commevsp


 * Thank you for your message and your concern. The template I have up is often ignored; it's mainly there to warn other copy editors, so there aren't two or more copy editing the same article. If you see something you want to change, I think you can go ahead. It's just that I might want to change it myself. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Capitol
Stating the word "capitol" is pointless. No caption is really needed. WP:ASTONISHME.  IWI  ( chat ) 23:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think your approach is too minimalist. It isn't obvious that it's the west front and then you should say of what. That image has had a caption for some time and many, if not most, infobox images do. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the term "Capitol" is pointless and west view has little if any. Many buildings don't have captions if you look (Empire State Building, Chrysler Building etc.) and in the ones that do, a description is neccessery.  IWI  ( chat ) 00:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of the policies you mentioned in your edit summaries forbids a caption, and even at Principle of Some Astonishment, where one editor has contributed 90% of the text, there is the example of "Southwesterly view" being left in the image of the pentagon. I'm going to revert to the last consensus choice, before my attempt to make it brief, and let you gain consensus on the talk page for your proposed change. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All you really need to do is omit the word “capitol”.  IWI  ( chat ) 01:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying "west front" is important, especially as the two following modern photos are of the east front; and the two aspects are similar from a distance. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 drive bling
Thanks for your help on WT:GOCE/COORD back in August as well. All the best,  Mini  apolis  20:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Archive links
According to WP:CEFC, "The content of any webpage may alter of course, and may in time disappear completely. In any case where a webpage is referred to from an article, where it may be subject to future change or removal, the specification of an alternate archive URL will ensure link accessibility and stability. When referenced content can be retrieved from an archive source such as the Internet Archive or WebCite then archive information can be included along with the original reference information. Anticipating the possibility of future alteration or deletion, archive URL information can thus be added pre-emptively, at the time of a reference's initial inclusion and ahead of any potential issues with the original link."

Would you rather add a bunch of archive links now (I'm still curious as to how this is detrimental) or would you rather wait five years and hope everyone who added web links to their citations remembered to archive them before some of them inevitably break? Runawayangel (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious captions on planet articles
I’m sorry but you are just wrong. The lead image at the top of the infoboxes will obviously be of said planet. See rule 1 of good caption criteria.  IWI  ( chat ) 01:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The rule states “clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious“  IWI  ( chat ) 01:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're completely taking out the identification of the subject in the caption, leaving for others to infer it. Plus, you're continuing a practice that I've encountered, and contested, on several articles. You think you know how the captions should be, but you're not asking, and gaining consensus, on article talk pages when you meet with such edits being contested. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The essay WP:ASTONISHME gives similar examples; the subject of the picture is obvious. It’s not like a picture of some other planet will be at the top of the infobox with the word “Jupiter” directly above.  IWI  ( chat ) 21:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, that essay makes some comment about the subject of a picture of the Pentagon being obvious, because the name denotes the shape, which is obvious in the picture; but that's asking a lot to assume people have such good technical vocabularies. In any case, that essay doesn't have the weight of policy, and if a caption states the obvious too much for your liking, it might not do so for others. If it's a featured article, as several (all?) of the planet articles are, you might think that careful consideration has been given to image captions by experienced editors. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No it’s not referencing the shape but the fact that you wouldn’t put a picture of another building in the article so the reader knows that this picture of a building is the one the article is about. Of course you are right; it is only an essay but the main premise is that there is no need to reference the name considering you wouldn’t have a picture of some other planet in the lead of the article. You would literally have to be 6 months old to not work out what the picture is of. It’s not like if we remove the caption people are going to be like “oh what planet is that at the top of the Jupiter article; gee they should have told us that in the caption” (at least acknowledge that). We get a perfect caption not when there is no more to add but when there is no more to take away (i.e. consise)  IWI  ( chat ) 01:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because it’s a featured article does not mean there is no room for improvement. That’s not a reason and you still haven’t given a valid point really. I mean we don’t need to tell people the subject of the picture if it’s right there in front of them.  IWI  ( chat ) 01:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riyaz Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annamalai ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Riyaz_Khan check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Riyaz_Khan?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Accessdate
hey no access dates in any ref from number 124 to number 128 – five in all n Michael Jackson videography can you pls help me to fix that. Thankyou. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I always put in access dates when applicable (when the reference is available online), when I create references; but they are not all that important. If you want to add them, just add  to the citation template (usually at the end). That is after you've checked the reference for viability (not a dead link) and suitability (that it supports the article text), which is what an access date implies has been done. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But what is the differences between the date and accessdate ? Akhiljaxxn (talk)
 * The  parameter is for the date of the source you're using: for example, the date of a newspaper or magazine article, where dates are usual (web pages are somewhat less likely to be dated). The   is for the editor to note when they last checked that link. The access-date is especially useful when there isn't a date. At least one bot will use the access-date in selecting an archive snapshot that is more likely to be useful if it is nearer the access-date in time, as that will lessen the chance of the snapshot being of an error page. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I was editing an extremely sexist and racist page
I was editing "Human Male Sexuality," an extremely biased entry that misinterpreted scientific studies, and at times outright lied about the results. If you check the existing citations and read the studies, this will be confirmed. Additionally I removed language that was harmful to women (with no citations and riddled with grammar mistakes), promoted rape as a strategy to get more parters, and parts that misinterpreted studies to promote veiled and implied racism.

Before you removed my edits, I was already discussing it on the false flags page. I was reverted for being too impartial the first time, yet if anyone would read the original passages I removed they would find things like:

A section titled "Male sexually violent strategies" where it states things like: "There are many sexual strategies that males can employ in order to gain mates. This includes sexual coercion" "Sexual coercion functions to increase the chance of a female mating with a male, and decrease the chance that the female will mate with another male" and whatever weird statement this means. This is a theory that hasn't been proven and they misinterpret the source they site: "Among other behaviors, this means that men are more likely to favour chastity in a woman, as this way a male can be more certain that her offspring are his own. Such a strategy is seen in males, and maternity is never doubted by the female, and so a chaste male is not highly valued by women.[citation needed] However, for men, female chastity confirms paternity, causing the male to compromise his sexual strategies in order to select a chaste mate."

Whoever edited my changes back didn't change back the coded racist part about people from low-income areas being more likely to rape under "factors influencing male sexual behavior" so I believe this is a deliberate attack against women written from a MRA perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.243.213 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Earth as an astronomical object
I've opened a discussion on this matter at Talk:Earth. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Earth photo
If no one replies, I assume nobody disagrees. You also still haven’t given a valid reason.  IWI  ( chat ) 13:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you've been reverted, then someone disagrees with you, and you need others to back you on the talk page, to override that disagreement. The valid reason is enshrined in policy, and has been stated by me on at least one occasion: state the subject of the photo, which in this case is "of the Earth". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the manual of style or anything like it is NOT policy but a guideline, meaning it doesn’t have to be followed. Also, this same section (WP:CAP) states that the obvious should be omitted where possible. So I ask again, what exactly is your basis.  IWI  ( chat ) 10:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ignoring me. I’ve done an RfC on the discussion but I suggest you read up on the difference between a policy and a guideline before you get in some trouble with other editors.  IWI  ( chat ) 03:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I’m surprised an editor of your experience would make an error of this nature.  IWI  ( chat ) 03:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel ignored, but there doesn't seem to be much I can do to convince you. When I've responded, you just tell me my reasons aren't valid. Whether it's a policy or a guideline, the MOS represents the sentiments of several-to-many editors. You seem to think that picture captions on pages that are frequently read and carefully curated (or they wouldn't, as some of them are, be featured articles) need your editing for minimal explicitness, even though I don't see a lot of support for your style when, on the one occasion (at Earth), you decided to try to get consensus for your version on the talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus was gained.  IWI  ( chat ) 12:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru
hey can you please participate with me in promoting this article to a  "Featured Article"? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll have the article on my watch list and will probably copy edit changes, or trim too-long URLs, which is what I've been doing lately and which subject-matter editors, such as yourself, should learn to do (I think it's your references that I've been trimming recently). However, I'm not going to take it on as a major project. It's an article with a lot of page views and, so, a worthy project. It's not even a good article at this point, and you might try for that status first, rather than taking it to featured article from B-level. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 blitz bling
Thanks for all of your contributions and happy editing in the new year! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

US presidents & vice presidents infobox
It appears that editor Therequiembellishere is making those veep changes in the intros of all the presidents & vice presidents infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)