User talk:Dhtwiki/Archive 8

John Cunliffe (author)
Hi there. Replying to the following message from you...

"Hello, I'm Dhtwiki. I noticed that you recently removed content from John Cunliffe (author) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)"

The sentence I removed was this: "He [John Cunliffe] gave up teaching in 1988 in order to write new episodes for a new series of Postman Pat.[7]" If you had clicked the link which is listed as the source for this info - https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/john-cunliffe-dead-postman-pat-rosie-and-jim-creator-bbc-a8557536.html - you would have understood why: there is literally nothing in that article citing that Cunliffe gave up teaching in 1988 in order to write more Postman Pat. In fact, that whole bit of info sounds very strange, as there WASN'T even a new series of Postman Pat until 1996 -- not counting four half-hour specials, but they were produced in 1991 and 1994. So I concluded that this piece of information is false. It's definitely not accounted for by a source, even though it claims to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.129.190 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right, and I've restored your deletion. However, this shows the importance of providing edit summaries. I can't assume that removals of information, especially when ostensibly sourced as this one was, are done judiciously; as they often aren't. I'm apt to rather quickly decide to restore such deletions, especially when I'm in a hurry, rather than undertake laborious verifying research on my own. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Menorah of the Temple
Shalom. I think that, since the article Menorah (Temple) deals with the relief on the Arch of Titus in Rome, rather than the replica in Jerusalem, there is no real way of determining the number of sides of the candelabrum's base - whether it was hexagonal or octagonal. After all, the sculpted relief shows a full frontal view of the candlestick, which if it had been a perfect square, a frontal view would not show depth at all. Only if viewed from an angle would a perfect square show depth. The Depth that is shown in the relief is only because two of its sides - when observed from the front - could be seen slanting inwards. If the base had 6 or 8 sides, one would not be able to see its other sides from a frontal view. Since we do not know for sure, I feel that it can be misleading to say definitively that the original candelabrum depicted in the relief represents a six-sided (hexagonal) base.Davidbena (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For Your Information: Here is an outline of an elongated octagon. For all we know, the base may have been shaped like this.Davidbena (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Your elongated-octagon example indicates to me that if we saw it represented from the side there would be considerably more foreshortening of the side panels than is evident in the Arch of Titus representation of the temple menorah. I haven't found a source for how many sides there were, but the appearance of the replica can be seen to represent the conclusions of those who must have had much more to go on than just what appears on the arch. In any case, if a correction is needed it should be more forcefully worded than your addition, which also suffers from having an explanatory footnote that appears as a reference citation (see efn for a better way). Dhtwiki (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In that, I agree with you, my friend. Perhaps we can find a source that tells us how many sides the base (stand) actually had. I'll check-around.Davidbena (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Because you thanked me
16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC) HotTomatoe (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of archive links from United States Capitol
Hello friend. Just wanted to start a conversation with you about removing archive links. I looked this up real quick, and it looks like we are encouraged to add archive links to all citations. Help:Archiving a source. Editors are also encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation, or at least submit the referenced URL for archiving, at the same time that each citation is created or updated. (New URLs added to Wikipedia articles (but not other pages) are usually automatically archived by a bot.) In fact, it looks like there's a bot that automatically does this for us. So, I just want to bring this to your attention. I think this page suggests that it is best practice to include archive links, not delete them. Thoughts? Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That guideline recommends placing the link when the reference is created, not running a bot that sets a massive number, especially when you're probably not checking for the archive links' validity or the continuing relevance of the reference to the text. I think I was conscientious in keeping the few useful links I found (1 where url-status=dead, 2 where I thought the site might disappear although the original links are currently working). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I think the idea is that, even for live links, years from now a website may rearrange its file structure, or become defunct, so it is good to have a link to a snapshot of that page. I had this happen to me the other day when I was editing... a link to CNN was dead, but because there was an archive link, I just clicked on that and got the page I needed. My reading of that guideline is that a bot automatically places these links, and they should be left in. Anyway, just my thoughts. Thanks for your time. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If a website is rearranged, we should link to the new arrangement, if possible, especially if it's a page that's likely to be updated. If we can't, the archive snapshot should be there anyway, because archivers can see what links Wikipedia has set and archive accordingly. The sort of indiscriminate linking that you are engaging in adds to page size and thus download time, as well as making it needlessly difficult for those of us who copy edit in raw editing mode, by adding clutter. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC) (copy edited ("use" -> "us") 18:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC))

Montesquieu
Hello! Here about the date of the portrait of Montesquieu. Sergeiprivet (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The old portrait caption was: Portrait by an anonymous artist, 1728.


 * You changed the caption to: Portrait by an anonymous artist, 1753-1794 (the date of 1728, which appears in his portrait, corresponds to that of his election at the French Academy).


 * My reversion's edit summary said: Unsourced (esp. with regard to the fact that the coincidence of dates means something) and excessive detail for image caption.


 * The Château de Versailles, which you link to above, gives the following particulars:


 * Désignation : tableau
 * Nº d'inventaire: MV 2976
 * Domaine : Peintures
 * Auteur :	Anonyme France XVIIIe siècle (peintre)
 * d'après Dassier, Jacques-Antoine (médailleur)                 [ Jacques-Antoine Dassier ]
 * Date de création : 1753-1794 (XVIIIe siècle)
 * Dimensions : H. 63 ; L. 52 cm.
 * Matière et technique : huile sur toile                          [oil on canvas]
 * Personne représentée : Charles-Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu


 * The translation of the "History" of the portrait at the Versailles site reads:


 * "Part of a set of 94 portraits of academics started in 1685 at the initiative of Abbé de Dangeau, then director. Collection of the French Academy. Revolutionary seizure on July 24, 1794. Sent to the Musée des Monuments Français on June 3, 1795. Handed over to the librarian of the Institute on September 12, 1803. Given by the Institute to Louis-Philippe for the Historical Galleries of Versailles in 1839; Louis-Philippe collection. 1850: north wing, attic, room 141 known as 'des Académiciens'. 1855 and 1861: wing of the South, attic, room 152. Mentioned in reserve, June 7, 1966. Deposit in Paris, Institut de France, Académie française, March 20, 1987."


 * I don't understand why, if the series was started in 1685, Montesquieu's portrait is dated so late (1753–1794), when his election to the Académie was in 1728. Why the delay in creating his portrait?


 * In any case, your caption, though accurate, is needlessly long. Since Wikipedia's cropped image omits the date of "1828" and the year of creation mysteriously isn't in line with M.'s election, I suggest that the caption be shortened to: Anonymous portrait (1753-1794). Dhtwiki (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC) (edited 18:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Understood, thank you! Sergeiprivet (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, one of us might add the Versailles site as a reference to the caption. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for MCMXC a.D.
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow up on archive links
So I'm aware of this policy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_source. I appreciate the link to the discussion but unfortunately I'm finding no consensus on not adding archive links. Also, it's brought up on there multiple times that links are being archived automatically and that's not true. Although, perhaps that's a separate conversation but one of the main reasons I run pages through the bot is to archive pages that aren't archived. When I did JP I believe it archived some as well. I've also helped edit a page to GA status and one of the criteria was adding archive links to the page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You'll see it says, "Editors are encouraged to add a archive link to each new citation." Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note the words "each new citation" in the policy you quote. That is directed at editors creating new citations, which is not what you're doing. Editors adding archive links one-at-a-time are more likely to be checking that an archive snapshot actually duplicates what the original link points to. You, unless you are unbelievably industrious, are not. All that leaves aside the fact that, when links do go dead, it's a good idea to check for website reorganization or whether the source is outdated or a better one available, something that's less likely to happen if an archive snapshot is automatically available.


 * The archives are being made without the placing of archive links ("New URLs added to Wikipedia articles (but not other pages) are usually automatically archived by a bot." just below the sentence you quote), or should be. It might be a good idea to check for that, but I suspect that's not what you, or others who make such massive link-adding runs, do (i.e. can you trust the bot to tell you if a link is missing?).


 * Can you point to the GA review where archive links were required? Is placing archive links stated as a general GA criteria, or was that merely the wish of a particular GA reviewer? If it's the former, I think it would have been mentioned in the discussions I've encountered. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 18:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC))


 * The GA review was for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and the archives were added by another editor using the bot at once. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The specific edit I'm referring to was done on November 9, 2020 by Rusted AutoParts. "Rescuing 29 sources and tagging zero as dead." This edit was done directly in response to the criteria listed for the GA by the reviewer. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing to the November 2020 edit. I was looking at your edit of 04:50, 2 February 2021. From the standpoint of practicality, an addition of 600 bytes isn't something I worry about. Even an addition of 7k is somewhat forgivable. However, your addition at Jurassic Park was 22k, which is above my threshold where such edits become deleterious.
 * The GA reviewer stated "Archive all archivable sources." That to me is ambiguous. General good article criteria do not require providing archive links. Is there some criterion particular to film articles? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And while I understand your point, I most definitely disagree with you. If editors have added over 100 links to a page without archiving, then I don't think the best use of time is for editors to frequently check each individual link. The reason the bot exists is precisely so that we can use it to check all of them more efficiently, and much quicker then we ever could. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as GA criteria for films, I don't know at the moment. I've never reviewed pages. I'm going off of that, as both the reviewer and editor who archived both frequently work on reviewing and creating GA Wikipedia film pages. But maybe that's something we can look into. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

LPRP
Hi

I just wanted to say that you've done a great job on the LPRP article. You've improved the flow quite significantly. --Ruling party (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2021/Barnstars
Thanks again for doing the barnstar table; we check off the awards as we give them out. Don't sweat the script; I found it extremely harrowing at first, but once you learn where the potholes are it's doable (and beats the hell out of doing it by hand – ditto for Jonesey's one-stop barnstar tag). All the best,  Mini  apolis  03:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, it's coming back to me that that's how the checkmarks work. I found their code amongst what I copied over from the December blitz, and thought they were there to signify who wanted barnstars and who didn't (yourself and Baffle gab). As far as the script goes, I don't expect it to be hard to master, it's just that I haven't looked at it yet. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

RoboCop
Hi Dhtwiki, just an FYI re: the plot for RoboCop as I didn't want to edit it while you're in motion. Murphy learns the gun trick from a tv show for his son, he doesn't learn it from his son. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. What I put in place of "learned for" obviously is wrong. I'll probably revert to the former wording, which now seems less "poor English" than it did, although it is too cryptic and could stand improvement. You're welcome to edit the article, especially if you leave your reasons for doing so in edit summaries, so that I'll understand. I tend to leave the GOCE template in place, even when I'm not editing intensively. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you asked ...
... --Darmoc (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What did I ask? When? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly --Darmoc (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that your explanation? Do you want one from me? If you write ...The "Statue of Freedom", a colossal statue that was raised to the top of the dome in 1863. "that" further defines which "colossal statue" you're referring to. On the other hand ...The "Statue of Freedom", which was raised to the top of the dome in 1863. is correct. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats enough. --Darmoc (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Region of Murcia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moor. 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) 06:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Dhtwiki (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

April blitz bling
Thanks for doing the barnstar page as well! Stay well and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ORDER issue I had
Thanks for noticing that Short Description error. That was an AWB edit, and after looking through some discussions I've purged it from my system, reinstalling from scratch. It seems to have fixed the error. Going to reevaluate the task that was being performed to fix the other few hundred errors I seem to have introduced.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  22:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of assistance! Dhtwiki (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing archive links
Hi! You've removed a number of archive links from citations in the WarGames article. I can't see how these removals help anyone; they do no harm, and are potentially useful against the day the linked resources disappear from the web. -- The Anome (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The archive links accomplish very little unless they are checked, and those links were all recently added massively and without explanation. Such links add to everyone's download time and to the clutter that editors have to sift through when copy editing in raw editing mode (i.e. without a parser such as Twinkle or, I assume, the Visual Editor), while not causing the archiving to happen or ensuring that the snapshots used are relevant. See this ongoing Village pump (proposals) discussion on the efficacy of adding such links, where there is no strong consensus on the matter. But I haven't seen my assumptions refuted, and those responsible for running IABot in this manner strike me as themselves not having a good grasp of the issues. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for copyediting both Danganronpa and Hajime. The latter was recently remade as there was no real world information in previous revisions by another user. Another Danganronpa article that was also recently made Kyoko Kirigiri which was copyedited by another user but I'll wait to ask for the guild before performing another nomination. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've barely gotten started on the latter article, which I chose in order to leverage my knowledge gained from editing the former. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And the article became GA. Thanks for the editing :D Tintor2 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. Congratulations. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

May drive barnstars
Hi. Thanks for compiling the barnstar page; did you run the script? I noticed that Audreyw5678 should have received a 30K-word award (not a 40K), and corrected it. All the best,  Mini  apolis  23:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * AnApple47 should have received a Tireless participation award, not a League; I've corrected it.  Mini  apolis  23:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not yet use the script, and I thought I would be thanking you for catching an error I might well make. However, Audreyw5678 had a raw word count of 31,749 on articles that were all either old backlog or requests. The 50% bonus is 15,874.5, and with no March rollover word count the grand total is 47,623.5, which qualifies for a Modern barnstar, leaving a rollover word count for July of 7,623.5. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. There were a lot of barnstars to give out, and I didn't have much time (probably should've left it for another coordinator) and was getting punchy. The script has a harrowing learning curve but boy, when it spits out that table ... I'll check AnApple47 and correct any mistakes I may have made. Thanks and all the best,  Mini  apolis  13:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a table format that you're missing and I'm not seeing. Perhaps I could create that for you, even when I do my hand calculations. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The script generates a results table which is ready for copy-pasting on the barnstar page. The hard part is getting the script to run; it hangs up if the data-input file isn't formatted perfectly (you have to go back and fix any bugs), but IMO it beats the pants off doing it by hand. Did I email you Torchiest and Jonesey's instructions? If not, I can send them (and the script, if you need it). All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have the scripts and instructions. I've placed them under my sandbox for easy consultation and redistribution. My delay in using the script is that Visual Basic isn't on my computer, nor is it easy, if not impossible, to install. I have had it machine-converted into a Python script, but that hasn't made it any easier.Dhtwiki (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss for me; I have Windows 10 (without Visual Basic; VBScript, I think, is a different Microsoft thing), which runs .vbs files with no problem. What computer do you use? All the best,  Mini  apolis  02:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have an iMac to do all my Wikipedia editing on. The Mac doesn't support VBScript. I have a Windows netbook on my desk, a computer that I haven't used in over a year and a half. I might try to get it back in use, just to run the script in native mode. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Once you get it to work for you, you'll never go back Good luck and all the best,  Mini  apolis  13:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Honorary Knights and Dames
Hi, I created a new article for Honorary knights and dames for the order of st michael and st george, sorry for not specifying in the comments of the articleJibco (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this explanation. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Jurassic Park Edit
How is it confusingly worded that Jurassic Park is the oldest film to have at least 1 Billion Dollars for its box office. How Else Am I supposed to say this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Corry11 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First, please put new posts at the bottom of a talk page and sign them with four tildes. Then, how is Jurassic Park the oldest film to have a box office of over a billion dollars? It's not the first to achieve that status, IIRC; and, so, it's unlikely the oldest film being shown, on TV, streaming, etc. What does "oldest" refer to? Dhtwiki (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Because it didn't make 1 billion on the initial release but the ticket sales from the 3d rerelease boosted the total box office to over 1 billion but Titanic made 1 Billion before Jurassic Park. There is no film released before JP that has 1 billion total $ in ticket sales. 4Corry11 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I see what you're trying to say now. It is the oldest film at List of highest-grossing films. The current wording at the article ("Following its 3D re-release in 2013 to celebrate its 20th anniversary, Jurassic Park became the seventeenth and oldest film in history to surpass $1 billion in ticket sales.") now makes more sense, when read in total. I must have been reading "seventeenth and oldest" out of context. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Moons of Jupiter
There are actually now 80 known moons of Jupiter, and I've cited a source that lists the calculated orbit of the new moon from the observations that were reported. 108.160.120.108 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, but you should enter the new moon in the article list, so it matches the new number. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just did. It will likely need further refining and things are still provisional at the moment. However, this is almost certain to get formally confirmed soon. 108.160.120.108 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Dick Jones
In Robocop, Jones is referred to as the Senior President of OCP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.232.242.68 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, so be it. However, if you don't provide an edit summary, and the reason for your edit isn't obvious, then it's hard to distinguish such an edit from vandalism. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

US Capital, "National" Language Word Choice
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 is the official law governing the establishment of seat of government for the federal government. It makes no mention of a "national capital" and the word choice is incorrect if Wikipedia - as an encyclopedia - is to remain factual and neutral. This line should be adjusted to reflect what's on paper, a seat for the federal government.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-17/

The same goes for a "national language." We have a common, spoken language which is American English, but there is no language at the federal level and no "national" language. The U.S. Constitution does not describe the Union as a nation actually, so to replace facts based on the Constitution with populist interpretation is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No1CopyEditor (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion we should have at Talk:United States. That article's editors have probably come to an agreement on what is meant by national capital and language. You need to try to change consensus on the article talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look into this route. Please understand that by reverting the language contributed it is being reverted to inaccurate statements. The United States is not a nation-state and there is no national capital. It is a federal district. A nation-state implies a common ethnic background. The spirit of an encyclopedia is not about a consensus or viewpoints, it is about stating facts - in this case from constitutional and legal foundations. That is what should be written and cited. The word country can be used more interchangeably and does not equate to a state. No1CopyEditor (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Cornel Wilde
The sentence I restructured on Cornel Wilde: It didnt net "HIM" it netted an award. You need to do some grammar study if you think this was a proper sentence the way it existed.Mareisland03 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Mareisland03


 * You should understand that it's classical English grammar that indirect objects come before direct objects in a sentence, without a preposition signaling them as such (i.e. "his performance in this role netted him a Hollywood film contract" should be understood as "for him"). Dhtwiki (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to take some English classes and learn how a sentence is structured. The changes I made to Cornel Wilde are proper English.  You don't say "It won him a contract".  The verb "won" is referring to the contract, NOT "him".  You obviously don't know how a sentence is diagrammed; I had English classes my entire education - classes you could use. Mareisland03 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Mareisland03
 * Please see this good explanation of indirect and direct objects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You want to write the sentence in a way that I find unnecessarily wordy. You seem to understand that "him" is an indirect object. Look at how indirect objects are diagrammed in whatever grammar book you have that shows such diagrams. It should tell you what I'm trying to explain (I have a copy of Warriner's English Grammar and Composition and it does have such diagrams, which show what I'm saying). Dhtwiki (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Cornel Wilde writeup
Regarding the changes Ive made to Cornel Wilde writeup, I suggest you go back to school and learn how to construct a sentence. I spent years on English language, so I know grammar. You obviously do not. Know what youre talking about before you make changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareisland03 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't enrolled in any new courses, but I have checked my grammar books on the subject. When you say you have spent years on the English language, you might have said "a lifetime", if you were a native speaker. Are you? What grammar book do you use that doesn't show indirect-object-then-direct-object as an appropriate construction? Is it that you are not a native speaker, have a grammar that omits my recommended construction, which seems natural to my ear and probably to anyone for whom English is a native language, and that you consequently approach English from pure analysis according to the rules you have learned? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Jupiter's moons
Howdy. Either Jupiter's infobox was wrong (it had shown 80) or Moons of Jupiter was wrong (showing 79). Didn't know which one was in error, so I picked one. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there may be an 80th moon, but it hasn't been referenced by our main reliable source yet. I saw the discrepancy between the lead and the list and reverted on that basis. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's ok. I changed the number to 79 at the planet's article. So now both article are consistent :) GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

2001: abbreviation of ‘Dr’
I’m afraid that your reversion is incorrect. The use of ‘Dr.’ as an abbreviation for ‘Doctor’ is commonplace but technically incorrect. A full stop (period) indicate that the word is truncated and that there are other letters after it, as in ‘Prof.’ for ‘Professor’. If the last letter of the abbreviation is also the last letter of the word, a full stop is therefore inappropriate and illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billtkd (talk • contribs) 16:06, 30 August 2021 (UC) (UTC)
 * See MOS:POINTS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The omission of a period to signal an abbreviation where medial letters have been removed is a Britishism, where a nice distinction between that and a truncation is desired (see Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, under "period (full stop) in abbreviations"). Apparently, Americans think that it's useful to use that stop to signal the presence of any abbreviated word (although not an acronym whose presence is signalled by all caps). As an American the latter usage is what I'm used to. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) is marked as using British English. However, the periods you removed were placed by someone else. Does British English sometimes allow use of periods as MOS:POINTS implies ("...but Dr. or Dr in British English"), and that it is not really "technically incorrect" to have them present in an article adhering to a British style? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pont Alexandre III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NCT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ogilvy (agency)
Sorry, I thought you were a vandal.  scope_creep Talk  13:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Most vandals don't leave such full edit summaries. I don't see the specific guideline you tell of in your edit summary: "Sentences can't start with a link, per MOS." In any case, "The American Express" is wrong. I've never heard the company referred to that way, unless the company name is modifying something else (e.g. "The American Express card" or "The American Express company"), as I wrote in my edit summary. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

CE for Napoleonic looting


— Wingedserif (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

''I saw your comment on Napoleonic looting of art, and I realized I forgot to thank you for putting in a long time on that GOCE request. It's made me feel a lot better to know that another editor has put eagle eyes on the article, so thank you!''

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding Bubble tea to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingedserif (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Afghan cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Corrected. Should have been Pilaf. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Area Rank of Russian Empire
Russian Empire was the third largest empire. So, what is the problem if area rank is added in the infobox template of the article Russian Empire? HELLO IM NAZEEF (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * When you put "3rd" in the area_rank infobox parameteer, there is an automatic link to List of countries and dependencies by area, where present-day Russia is first in terms of area. I see that List of largest empires lists it as third largest throughout history, with the British and Mongol empires ahead of it; and that's in the article text. So, I was possibly precipitate in removing it (I did inadvertently hit the "publish" button before I had completed my edit summary). However, given the link from the infobox, there is potential for confusion. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Archiving
Hello. Thanks very much for sorting this out. I agree that the archiving seemed a bit too keen – it seems to me that to leave so little has a disruptive effect on the use of the Talk page. I note that the user who set it up is (or was?) still doing so. I don't really understand how it works – nowadays when I set it up I just use the defaults from Help:Archiving (plain and simple) and let subst-magic do the rest, as I am too lazy/thick to do anything more. Occasionally I then see other users adjust those settings afterwards, but, great, fine.

Judging by their edits and your amendments it looks as if the number of threads to leave behind (maxkeepthreads?) is the issue: the other user prefers 1 and at Venice you changed it to 4. It seems that they are still using this setting or, rather, they were when they last edited in early September. I am wondering: should someone have a polite word? I am very unclear, especially as it's a while since they did anything. I can see pros and cons ... I would be interested in your view. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've never seen "maxkeepthreads" set to 1, or even used (the article "age" parameter is usually adjusted if more aggressive archiving is wanted). I thought that "minkeepthreads" might have been meant, and that would usually be set so that several threads reside on the talk page. If setting "maxkeepthreads" to 1 is ongoing by User:Kitcatx, I would certainly question why, for it makes for way too aggressive archiving. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the helpful response and ... Blimey! I must confess that the difference between those two parameters had eluded me completely. I thought it was simply that they were setting it and you were changing it; I had not realized that you had replaced their parameter with a better one. It's a pity but technical details like this do often seem to cross the road and hide in the bushes when they see me coming. So, I am not sure what next: yes they certainly were setting maxkeepthreads=1 in their most recent edits, but on the other hand their most recent edits are some time ago. It is obviously a problem if they continue ... I would be tempted to drop them a line but it might just be annoying if they are not editing anyway. I am tempted to leave it for now, try to remember to look from time to time, and only seek to speak to them about it if it reemerges as a problem. Does this sound reasonable to you? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at Kitcatx's contributions, and they've done a lot of this, of which I've checked only a few. Where it's been done this way, no one has changed it, even at Talk:Vatican City, which gets only a few visits per day, even though the article gets over 4,000. That is the most recognizable, and probably most trafficked, article of those I saw on their contributions page. If there are any articles that you are interested in, I would certainly suggest changing the parameters as I've changed them for the Venice talk page. If you're looking for a project, changing all of them, perhaps after asking why it was done in the first place on Kitcatx's talk page (note that they haven't joined in this discussion, although I pinged them), would be another option. Archiving all but one article on an article talk page is unprecedented in my experience and, I think, is positively harmful. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC) (edited 09:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC))

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)