User talk:Dhtwiki/Archive 6

Henry VIII reversion
You recently reverted my edit of the section concerning the annulment of Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon. I respectfully disagree because, while I agree that "all hope" was already perfectly acceptable, the sentence in question continues " . . of tempting Catherine to retire to a nunnery or otherwise stay quiet were lost." In my opinion, "all hopes . . . . . . were lost" or, perhaps, "all hope . . . . . was lost" are better grammar than the current "all hope . . . . were lost". It was, therefore, the term "were" that implied the plural, not, as you suggest, the term "all". Toodeep (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the verb. Also, there wasn't an edit summary that told me what you were trying to resolve. Something has to be changed. "All hopes...were lost" sounds odd to me, so I might favor "all hope...was". Dhtwiki (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Wish
Hello. Help copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Johginwei (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like our old sock friend. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot debris
Dhtwiki - no offence for the revert, but man those messages drive me around the twist :) They are long, verbose, reek of self importance, make talk pages / archives hard to navigate, and are rarely of historical interest. It  would be as if for every minor copy edit you left a three para detailed talk page post explaining who you are, what you did, and that you have a talk if anybody disagrees. Nonsense IOW, when the edits are in the article history.  Ceoil  (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to do something other than treat them like spam or vandalism. Even though on Talk:Laocoön and His Sons they weren't so much needed as prompts for checking, or worksheets to list mistaken, bot actions, on other pages they have been, although I'm somewhat in a minority in appreciating their usefulness. I could one-click-archive them to a separate archive, since your dislike of them extends to archive pages, but that would be an unusual action. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hiten
Hi I just want to say sorry about the reverts for Hiten Tejwani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.119.166 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I noticed how you've been copyediting the Moscow University in Tashkent article for quite a while and I decided to check out your user page. You seem quite the dedicated editor, with copyediting especially. I'm a new editor- I tried to get into editing Wikipedia last year but I found myself much more addicted to reading the articles as opposed to editing them! Anyways, I was wondering if you could point me in a helpful direction so I could contribute more effectively. Thanks a million.

Miscellaneous Machinery (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC) 


 * Thank you for the kitten. I suggest you look at the Community portal page, which indicates some of the help that's needed, copy editing being one of them. You also could get involved in a subject-matter WikiProject, which are linked to from that page. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, Thank you so much! That's exactly what I needed. Happy editing!

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Regading recent deletion of sourced content in Indian state articles
Hi, I've seen you revert that user's deletion of sourced content. I've opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics, your valuable inputs will be appreciated. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And this as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

hello

 * Thank you for your message. I hope you get directions to a more appropriate place than our "village pump" area, which is usually reserved for issues that impact the encyclopedia directly. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A friendly place for beginners to get help is the Teahouse. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hardwicke Hall
Hi,

I see you are having fun trying to sort the images on the Hardwick Hall page. I'm not going to meddle but would like to make a couple of observations:

1) The chimney piece picture is somewhat overwhelming at the moment and is not really in the right section to justify it's "left" positioning.

2) The picture of the Old Hall would possibly be better in the Today section, it's at odds with the other pictures where it is. Though I see the logic of grouping the exterior shots together. Ideally the building should have its own section or even article.

On the Wimpole Estate page I've tried a gallery of interior images to group them together.

Please feel free to ignore me! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You make some good points, which occurred to me, especially the possible confusion of keeping the old hall with those of the main house. I wanted to make the pictures align better and make for less confusing text sandwiching, as well as provide what I though was better image coherence. I didn't want to start removing images, although I think they're too many and too crowded for the text, and I didn't want to go to the trouble of creating a gallery, which is another solution. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Rule, Britannia
Hello. Regarding my edit on Rule, Britannia!: the indicative mood would have been Britannia rules the waves. --jftsang 08:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you may have missed what I was referring to. On 26 April 2019, I reverted, in large part: (from the subjunctive mood, expressing a wish, to the indicative mood), with the edit summary, "Unexplained, seemingly OR; why isn't "rule" imperative mood?" So, what you labeled the subjunctive mood, I though should be labeled otherwise. I don't have a quarrel with "rules" being labeled as indicative. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 blitz bling!
And thanks for voting in the elections! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Death Wish edits
I saw you reverted one of my changes to "Death Wish" because it had "no relevance" to the movie. However, there are also other items in that same section which have no relevance to the movie.

An example is these 2 sentences: "Actress Helen Martin, who had a minor role, subsequently appeared in the television sitcoms Good Times and 227. Sonia Manzano (Maria from Sesame Street), has an uncredited role as a supermarket checkout clerk."

The whole paragraph contained in the "Cast" section are a collection of actor references of their other works or simply highlight their their names which then take you to other Wiki pages about them.

So, how are these any different than my addition to the article?

I thought the whole idea of a wiki was to provide interesting and factual information to the readers of the article, which this additional paragraph provides. Why is my sentence addition any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenguy2 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've replied to your post on the Death Wish talk page and restored your edit. Please learn to sign your posts using the four-tilde method ( ~ ). Dhtwiki (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info on signing my posts and edits. I'm relatively new to the editing process and constructive criticism is welcome. I'm glad we are able to come an agreement on my edits regarding Marcia. When viewing older movies, it's interesting to see actors in very early roles and how they've continued to work in the industry. Aspenguy2 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding a user you previously warned for vandalism
I'm only a casual Wikipedia editor, reverting vandalism and fixing typos whenever I see them, so I'm not really sure what to do when I see a repeat vandal, but someone you've previously warned for vandalism has vandalized another article. The user's name is Mrbiglee, and the article he vandalized was Weight training. Hopefully this is the right way to report this kind of thing when I see it, and sorry for bothering you if it's not. 219.117.229.83 (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Usually, we leave user warning templates (and I don't know why casual, or IP, editors can't do that, although I understand it's probably more than most would want to undertake); and if there are enough to warrant a block, an administrator will do that. I took a look at what you reverted, and it definitely shows a lack of understanding on Mrbiglee's part as to what belongs on an article page. You've pinged him, so he might get the message by reading this. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * maybe you should get a life!! I'm just having a laugh with my friends, and guess what no one died or even got injured. There are a lot of worse things going on in the world than silly edits on Wikipedia! And also how do you know it's not true because it was on Wikipedia!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbiglee (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I see that none of your edits to articles lasted long, except for this one to Miss World, which should have been reverted, but hasn't been for over three years. You should find a life other than making silly edits on Wikipedia. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019 GOCE drive bling
The drive had the highest editor participation since May 2015, and brought the copy editing backlog to a record low of 585 articles! Much thanks for taking part! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
...for repairing a few of my f[oul] ups as I tried to quickly remove hundreds of unnecessary double spaces yesterday. Uh, technical question: are two spaces before a brace required? If so, why?--Brogo13 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I only saw the one at New York (state) that you had undone but also saw was another indentation that needed to be made, which is why I didn't just revert your edit. What's required isn't a particular number (although 2 spaces is a magic number sometimes), but enough to make it clear that it is an indentation (why not 4, as is usual, and sometimes required (Python?), in programming?). Anyway, if you are on a mission, I hope you will discern the difference between embedded list closures and template closures (or train your bot to do that), as I think it is a usual practice, and I know that it helps readability in my case. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mission accomplished! (500+ edits) All seriousness aside, I got frustrated editing Trump articles ad nauseam but not him personally. Yanno, E on the padlock. Funny...Ctrl+f, space, space--Brogo13 (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This may be of interest for you
Hello, I write to inform you that the edit warrior that for years has agressively tried to lower the percentage of European Mexicans on several articles such as White Latin Americans or Demographics of Mexico is back at it now in the article of Mexico, as before he is using false accusations to try to pass his edits as justified (i.e. he just said that a book published in 1960 is from 1800). Your support has been highly valuable to me before and I'd appreciate if you lend me a hand on this, thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "...an edit warrior that for years has aggressively tried to lower the percentage of European Mexicans..."


 * What an absolutely hilarious caricature. How many sock puppet investigations have you requested and had failed? You have no room to talk about persistent edit warriors when it is you who has single handedly spent two years acting as a Wikipedia dragon on every article that revolves the subject of white and mestizo Mexicans (a few examples ).HueyXocoatzin (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin


 * Sorry to take so long to reply. I took a look at Mexico and saw that there is an unreverted edit by User:HueyXocoatzin, as well as several that have been reverted. I don't know the issues there as well as I did on White Latin Americans, where, as someone who had copy edited the entire article, I could more easily discern that changes were unwarranted and made without discussion. I see you have a thread started on HueyXocoatzin's talk page; but there is no discussion on the talk page for Mexico, which is where I think the subject should be broached. Nor did I see anything at any of the relevant Wikiprojects I checked (Mexico, Latinamerica). There's also the possibility of involving the scholarly discipline(s) concerned with the study of ethnic self-identification (sociology, psychology), in order to straighten out this edit warring. I know your involvement has been considerable, across several articles, and usually well received. I might get involved, if I can get a better handle on what exactly is going on at Mexico; but my lack of fluency in Spanish, along with my not being a statistician, sociologist, or psychologist, limits the effect my participation would have. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have a question. If I were able to bring a professor or archaeologist who studies the subject to confirm that Pob3qu3 is misrepresenting sources, would that settle the content dispute once and for all? All the editors who have engaged with Pob3qu3 quit pursuing the subject either due to lack of interest or lack of enough free time to continue pursuing this specific topic as Pob3qu3 has. We're also not any sort of authority on the subject, so I'm wondering if someone--who has verifiable credentials--is able to put their input on this matter to cease this never ending tail chase with the approval of Wikipedia admins.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

Hello Dhtwiki and thanks for your reply. To answer your question, the issue in the article of Mexico is the same than the one there was with the editor Wikiedro in the article White Latin Americans some months ago  (the edit summaries are, in fact very similar, this is, the editor incurs in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and argues that the surveys published by Mexico's government are not about race even though the entire topic is about races at the point that the documents often have the words race and racial on the title aswell as ignoring the sources that allude to Mexicans having European appearance, this going hand-to-hand with removing reliable sources from the article  (looking back, we had this problem with another account little more than a year ago, the account ignorantes22  who claimed to be from Chile  just like Wikiedro has stated aswell ). As you can see this kind of vandalism disguised of "honest outrague" is not new, and it's been repelled thanks to the collaboration of various users that recognize the persistent uncivil behavior the operator of the aforementioned accounts display, that's why I would appreciate your support, because if I do it alone the other editor will drag me to edit warring territory where I may get sanctioned (being sanctioned is something the operator of the account Hueyxocoatzin doesn't care about because said account is a throw away one, in fact that may be what he wants). Thanks for your time. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Venice
I changed "discovered" because indigenous peoples already lived in America, thus they discovered it. 50.68.172.46 (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * People rediscover things all the time. Why is "found" any better? Indigenous peoples found it first. Try to get consensus on the talk page, though, if you want to insist on a change. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsushi
Sorry for bothering you again but the GA reviewer said something about the article's prose. You think I should abort the review?Tintor2 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I was surprised that it was reviewed so quickly (you hadn't marked it as GA bound). I thought the article had been in very ragged shape prose-wise and that I made substantial improvements. However, the reviewers comments are good ones, and the article does need work. I have already done some work in response to the reviewers comments. I will continue to work on addressing prose concerns, if you will answer questions of more substantive matters. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies for jumping in this discussion, but I just wanted to thank you for the improvements you already made to the article and for agreeing to look over it again. I have a lot of respect for anyone that does copy-edits for the GOCE, as I do not consider myself good enough to do any of that. If either of you would like clarification on comments, then I would be more than happy to try and help. I would be more than happy to pick this up for a GAN once it is ready. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

revert
Thanks for the revert of the post to Earth by Eivindgh. I thought it was unnecessary but decided to only correct his obvious (to me) errors. I left it to another to actually revert. — Joe Kress (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

/* Environmental protection */ I deleted 'for' from "Adams advocated for balanced growth".
Hello. Although I'm not new to Wiki I don't spend as much time writing and editing as I would like. So I apologize if I make mistakes here.

You say, Advocacy can be either "for" or "against". Having spent an hour or so looking at dictionaries and Googling examples of the word's usage it does seem that the formula advocate for, where advocate is a verb, is indeed sometimes used in the US. Outside the US it isn't, but as the subject of the article was American it was presumptuous of me to change it.

However there are American writers on language who consider advocate for to be a recent and unnecessary addition: https://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=149 And none of the nineteen examples of the word's use at Lexico include it: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/advocate

Regards,

Wes Pacek (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary, you said what you did (I deleted 'for' from "Adams advocated for balanced growth".) but not why. Using "for" didn't seem wordy or wrong; so, I didn't see a need for the change. I still thinks it's a good formulation; but that's now moot, since someone else saw that the text didn't reflect the source and changed it away from mentioning advocacy at all. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This may be of interest for you
Hello, I write to inform you that the edit warrior that for years has agressively tried to lower the percentage of European Mexicans on several articles such as White Latin Americans or Demographics of Mexico is back at it now in the article of Mexico, as before he is using false accusations to try to pass his edits as justified (i.e. he just said that a book published in 1960 is from 1800). Your support has been highly valuable to me before and I'd appreciate if you lend me a hand on this, thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "...an edit warrior that for years has aggressively tried to lower the percentage of European Mexicans..."


 * What an absolutely hilarious caricature. How many sock puppet investigations have you requested and had failed? You have no room to talk about persistent edit warriors when it is you who has single handedly spent two years acting as a Wikipedia dragon on every article that revolves the subject of white and mestizo Mexicans (a few examples ).HueyXocoatzin (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin


 * Sorry to take so long to reply. I took a look at Mexico and saw that there is an unreverted edit by User:HueyXocoatzin, as well as several that have been reverted. I don't know the issues there as well as I did on White Latin Americans, where, as someone who had copy edited the entire article, I could more easily discern that changes were unwarranted and made without discussion. I see you have a thread started on HueyXocoatzin's talk page; but there is no discussion on the talk page for Mexico, which is where I think the subject should be broached. Nor did I see anything at any of the relevant Wikiprojects I checked (Mexico, Latinamerica). There's also the possibility of involving the scholarly discipline(s) concerned with the study of ethnic self-identification (sociology, psychology), in order to straighten out this edit warring. I know your involvement has been considerable, across several articles, and usually well received. I might get involved, if I can get a better handle on what exactly is going on at Mexico; but my lack of fluency in Spanish, along with my not being a statistician, sociologist, or psychologist, limits the effect my participation would have. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have a question. If I were able to bring a professor or archaeologist who studies the subject to confirm that Pob3qu3 is misrepresenting sources, would that settle the content dispute once and for all? All the editors who have engaged with Pob3qu3 quit pursuing the subject either due to lack of interest or lack of enough free time to continue pursuing this specific topic as Pob3qu3 has. We're also not any sort of authority on the subject, so I'm wondering if someone--who has verifiable credentials--is able to put their input on this matter to cease this never ending tail chase with the approval of Wikipedia admins.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin

Hello Dhtwiki and thanks for your reply. To answer your question, the issue in the article of Mexico is the same than the one there was with the editor Wikiedro in the article White Latin Americans some months ago  (the edit summaries are, in fact very similar, this is, the editor incurs in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and argues that the surveys published by Mexico's government are not about race even though the entire topic is about races at the point that the documents often have the words race and racial on the title aswell as ignoring the sources that allude to Mexicans having European appearance, this going hand-to-hand with removing reliable sources from the article  (looking back, we had this problem with another account little more than a year ago, the account ignorantes22  who claimed to be from Chile  just like Wikiedro has stated aswell ). As you can see this kind of vandalism disguised of "honest outrague" is not new, and it's been repelled thanks to the collaboration of various users that recognize the persistent uncivil behavior the operator of the aforementioned accounts display, that's why I would appreciate your support, because if I do it alone the other editor will drag me to edit warring territory where I may get sanctioned (being sanctioned is something the operator of the account Hueyxocoatzin doesn't care about because said account is a throw away one, in fact that may be what he wants). Thanks for your time. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Still considering whether to look into this and be of some help. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

ce
There's no such thing as a "four-dot ellipsis" – it's a typo. If there's a contextually important period.... (that's period, nbsp, ellipsis, plain space), go for it. Or them (brackets). Or leave [all of] us still guessing, as I did. But please fix it. Thanks.--Brogo13 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, under backmatter – punctuation, although I initially learned about it in Barzun's The Modern Researcher, both of which indicate American usage. However, it's unfair to say that it's a typo or that it simply doesn't exist. Perhaps it isn't recognized by Wikipedia's manual of style; I didn't check. Perhaps it could be changed, but that was only part of the problem I had with your edit, which changed several things, none of which I thought had to be changed if not making things worse. Plus, there was no explanation for any of it, no substantive edit summary. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Persistent reverting of edit that we developed by consensus in February 2019
You may recall that, in February, an editor pointed out that it was POV for "List of countries and dependencies by area" to declare Mexico to be the largest Amerindian-culture country. He or she presented the argument in the Talk page, and we quickly developed a consensus that the information was extraneous to the article and POV, and it was removed from the article. Here is the Talk page discussion.

Well, a new editor, fresh back from two edit-warring suspensions, brought back that extraneous and POV information (among other things). I reverted his "good-faith edit" and pointed out that the issue had been discussed previously in the Talk page and that a consensus had emerged that it should not be included in the article. He immediately reverted, wit his exit summary consisting of "ok." I then found the old Talk page discussion (which, as you saw, was archived) and included the link in my second reversion. He immediately reverted again, with his edit summary being "Your opinion. Thanks!" Here's the edit history. Since I can't revert him a third time within 24 hours, and since he's obviously going to ignore an appeal to discuss in the Talk page, I was wondering if you'd like to help out in bringing the article back to NPOV. Thank you, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted the last edit, noting in my edit summary that the account has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on another article. However, no warning templates were placed with regard to List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area. Maybe your reason for not placing such were the same as those I gave in my edit summary, but that's something that should usually be done when there's a persistent problem. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Frankly, I care about the article providing reliable and NPOV info more than what happebs to disruptive editors.  I hope that he gets the message now that a second editor has reverted him and starts discussing his proposed changes in consensus in the Talk page.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Capital Punishment
"Trivial, vague, and apparently unsourced; what constitutes "Western" and why is that important to mention that US is an outlier?" Trivial: No argument there Vague, unsourced: Open google and enter western world capital punishment. View result Western: Look up Western World Why is it important?: It is not important but intriguing the most advanced nation in most areas is not advanced in some areas.B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to supply sources, or at least links to relevant articles, to support the text, which in line with other statements (at Capital punishment, for example). That doesn't make it appropriate, especially given your contention that it's a manifestation of not being advanced (in other words, it can be consisdered POV pushing). If you really think there is something that needs adding, you are welcome to start a discussion on the article talk page, of course. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)