User talk:Dhtwiki/Archive 9

This could be of interest for you
There's currently a new conflict in the White Mexicans article. Its (like we've seen multiple times before in other articles) an editor trying to force his way into the article disregarding sources, consensus and using rather subjective arguments to do so. Would appreciate your help. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of a similar (and similarly titled) request and discussion of about two years ago. I then left my possible involvement up in the air, and my reasons for being reluctant to be much involved still apply. However, I'll put the page on my watch list (I already see a minor change I can make). As you said earlier, the issues are similar to those broached on the White Latin Americans page. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Romans
Roman physical appearance, I think it should be clarified what “intermediate “ means on hiserplex, if you type in “skin color prediction “ you can read a variety of studies that explain that “intermediate “ is light skin that tans well and pale is light skin that doesn’t tan well, the first link from 2017 study explains this well, also if you look at the images results you will see multiple figures that shows the skin color visually next to the prediction, it’s clear intermediate is light skin from all the figures, which makes sense with what we see in Roman art, when people see intermediate they picture a modern south Asian, I don’t get why they even use that term, for example read the supplement information of the 2018 study that had cheddar man and louchbour hiserplex, it literally used the term white to describe a 90 percent intermediate value Yogibear1133 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This seems to be in reference to recent edits at Ancient Rome. However, my contribution was merely to do some slight copy editing. I did not introduce the terms that you are commenting on. This discussion might be better had at the article's talk page. Also, by "hiserplex", do you mean "HIrisPlex-S", a system for predicting phenotypes from DNA? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes hlrisplex is what I meant, look up what intermediate actually means there is a huge difference from how people picture intermediate skin and what they prediction actually means but ok Yogibear1133 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok I’ll just leave it alone I doubt it will be changed and people that read ancient dna prediction without reading what each prediction means and how it is made clearly don’t understand context anyway Yogibear1133 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487854/

Just so you know I’m not making it up, read this study on all of the current 36 snps used in hlrisplex currently Yogibear1133 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled, from 5.173.49.220, re Gawain c/e
You may now also copy edit Tristan and Iseult if you like. And Lancelot and Guinevere, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.49.220 (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I copy edited Gawain because it was long on the backlog for copy editing (tagged in July 2021), and I usually take them in that order. The next oldest related article is Knights of the Round Table, tagged in August 2021. Since Gawain needed some, but not much, work, I'm not sure these articles need to be tagged at all. Now, if I do copy edit articles, I don't expect such intensive copy editing by other editors at the same time, as you did on Gawain. I don't mind some, but so much gets in the way of what I'm trying to do. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit summary
Hi! I saw the edit summary for Special:Diff/1072681035 and was a little confused (maybe I need to get more sleep): what was the other image you were referring to? The change seems to just be changing whitespace. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That's strange. I thought I was removing an image I thought was unnecessary, which I mistakenly thought had been added by the previous edit, rather than an extraneous space being removed. I've undone my edit. I didn't find when the image was added (just that it was resized here), but it was before this year. So, it's been there for some time, and I'll leave it be for now. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem at all. I was just looking at the edit summary on my watchlist and getting befuddled. :) Enterprisey (talk!) 09:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Districts
No. of districts in India = States + Union territories =(26+26+35+38+32+2+33+22+12+24+31+14+56+36+16+12+11+16+30+23+33+6+38+33+8+75+13+25) + (3+1+3+20+2+1+11+4) = 726 + 45 = 771 (not 775) Please clarify my doubt... 106.76.208.222 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You're taking these figures from where? I found a government site that gave figures for the states but no total for the country. There are also the various state articles that give district totals. However, I'd like to find an online site (especially since new districts are created so often) that would be reliable (preferably government site?) that would give a total for the country (otherwise one could be accused of original research by adding the state totals as you've done). Dhtwiki (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Lata mangeshkar
You need to look at other articles how they are written. No article in wikipedia uses the sentence you did. It looks complex in readability and not correct. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My version: "She is widely considered to have been one of the greatest and most influential singers in India." Your version: "She is widely considered one of the greatest and most influential singers in India." The only difference is the second verb (phrase): "to have been" in my version, versus none which is absent in yours. My version is better at indicating that she has died, while her work lives on and is appreciated, and the three extra words don't add much complexity to a sentence of 14 words without them. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Both expresses the same meaning actually but I see the later one often being used. 'to have been' usually used to indicate event occurred in past. But I don't have problem if you prefer to use your version. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment on GOCE drive page
I saw your comment on the GOCE May Drive page, and tagged Statue of Queen Victoria (Hong Kong) as being copyedited, among others. Thank you! JML1148 (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work on the drive. The question I had was whether the article had actually been marked as needing copy editing, which is what we give credit for when editing the backlog (as opposed to editing articles on the requests page). I didn't find a relevant template, but I might have missed something. In any case, I gave credit for the article, thinking that possibly you had taken it as an article that related to the requested edit of Victoria Park (Hong Kong), although the article on the statue wasn't marked. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry! I thought this was to do with the talk page not being tagged as being copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors. I copyedited it as it was a closely related article to Victoria Park (Hong Kong). JML1148 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI thread related to discussion in which you participated
Hi, just notifying you of this ANI thread connected to a discussion on the MoS talkpage. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thanks for copyediting Nuremberg trials! You definitely improved the language and pushed me to increase the clarity of the article. Will go to FAC soon!

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) 


 * Thank you. I hope the FAC reviewers are as happy with the article as the goat seems to be. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Nuremberg trials c/e
Hi Dhtwiki, are you aware another editor has pitched up on the requests page listing for this article? See this diif. They haven't edited the article yet but I'll strike their acceptance and drop a short note on their talk page. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If fact, their childish edits here tell me they shouldn't be let anywhere near this article! Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems to have been purely in fun and not necessarily reflective of their ability to edit seriously. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're probably correct. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

 * Thank you for the barnstar. I see that you've addressed the issues where I asked for clarification. I've just made some further tweaks to the article. By "Harvard" I assume you mean full citations, because short footnotes require the, now default, Harvard form (formerly needing to be established by the ref=harv parameter). You could convert all references one way or the other, but I would leave them mixed, sfn only for when a work is cited many times. Otherwise, conversion to one format could, I think, only be done manually and would be unnecessarily tedious. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back on this. I had heard that FAC nomination needs the citation bibliography to be in the one format or the other format. Since this is the plan to move toward FAC nomination, then which format do you think is the preferable one (and what is the most direct way of getting into that format)? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * John Adams is a featured article on a US president close in time to Madison (so similar mix of on- and off-line sources, I would think), and it has a mix of short footnotes and full citations. The short footnote style is flawed with regard to accessing particular page numbers of online sources, which its "page(s)" parameter doesn't facilitate (although I've see kludgy attempts at a workaround). Where it's convenient to have such access, full citations are best. Although, not to use the sfn format, as well, where it makes for succinctness, as in referencing page numbers in offline sources that are cited many times, would make for a long-winded References section. That's the main shortcoming that I can see of allowing only one format. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Why you edit Kerala Backwater ?
We are from Kerala we know our state. Nadhukerala (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It might be that you are trying to include too much of what you know in the encyclopedia. I thought that giving the alternate name for Alappuzha district wasn't necessary in that context. Even if it were necessary to give the alternate name, it should be set off with commas – "the Alappuzha, or Alleppey, and Kottayam Districts" – not the way you wrote it, without the commas. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right?
I've been involved in MANY CE drives. I was going to edit Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005. But: for a word count of 315 words?! I don't think so. What's up with the word count widget? I'm not a math major or anything, but look at that article! Something is amiss.--Bddmagic (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The script doesn't count words that follow bullets and some other kinds of formatting. Copy and paste to Microsoft Word or a text editor to count the words in the article, then use that count on the drive page. Thanks for editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed the bullet points from the version before you started editing, whose word count was 315 with bullet points (using a regular expression, in wikEd, that converted ^\*+[ ]? to \n), ran the "Page size" script, and got 3412 as a result. That's probably a too complex process for most people, but I was trying to determine is if you could infer the word count from any of the other values returned by the script. I didn't see anything that one could use. So, using a text editor's word-counting function is probably the best bet for most people. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Dhtwiki; the OP has posted the same at GOCE talk, where the OP has received replies to the same effect. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  22:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

wikEd
Thanks for the help. I would like to learn more about wikEd. Where/how can I do that?--Bddmagic (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * See User:Cacycle/wikEd. You also might look for similar editors with better support, as wikEd seems to be somewhat orphaned at this point. It works well enough for my purposes, but there may be better out there. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent help. Thank you!--Bddmagic (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies
Apologies for adding to your GOCE workload at Ai-Khanoum; I believe the article is in a much better shape now, however, so I hope you'll forgive me. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Buda (1849)
Hi, you removed my editing on this article, writing that "further down that gives the defensive order of battle". Yes, but there was no offensive (Hungarian) order of battle given. This is what I added to my editing from yesterday. So I put back my editing because it is important for the understanding of where the given attacking brigade or battalion belonged. Sylvain1975 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you have a lot of detail to add, but it didn't seem well formatted and just a complicated list of units. If it's going to be a list, it should at least have regular, asterisk bullet points (*). Dhtwiki (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. I used your suggestion.
 * PS. I put the battle order in this, and other articles concerning the military clashes of the 1848-49 war, because quite a few English speaking people (historians, military reenactors, wargamers) interested in the military events, complained that there are no English detailed descriptions about the important battles. Sylvain1975 (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

History of Berliner FC Dynamo (1989–2004)
Hello

I just wanted to inform you that I am currently working on a lead section for the artcle. I hope to have it done before the week-end.

Kindest regards

/EriFr (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

United States Secretary of State
Why do you not believe that the secretary of state shouldn't be hoisted up on the profile? The Secretary of State is one of the most important roles in the U.S. government and the highest secratarial cabinet member. Hi3d 2 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Because, as I said in my edit summaries, that official is not mentioned in the constitution, and by consensus established on the talk page for United States, we decided to limit ourselves to mentioning only those officials who were mentioned. Besides, the secretary of state is not equally influential in all administrations; there are other officials who are considered to be more so, regardless of their official precedence. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Just letting you know
I'm currently having a sour conflict in the article of White Mexicans to the point I've had to restore to an stable verison, I'd appreciate if you supported me on it as you've done in the past when difficult editors come through, the difficult editor's behaviour is in fact very similar (and I mean it, check the diffs on my recent reply) to those that have targeted articles related to European peoples on latin american countries before. Thanks in advance! Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Just letting you know I got your message. I have that page on my watchlist and have been watching the byplay. You've seemed reasonable in the past, but this new editor argues reasonably as well. I haven't delved into that page as much as that of White Latin Americans, so I'm not sure how much reasonable assistance I can offer, other than just being a vote for keeping what was there but in a somewhat mindless fashion. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply! Don't worry about not being able/having time to delve into the entire discussion (which has gotten rather big by now), any support is good. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for Good Article Status
Per WP:GA, anyone can nominate an article for Good Article review, not just registered users. It clarifies specifically that only registered users may review articles:

"Anyone may nominate an article, and any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia content policies may review an article nominated at this page against the good article criteria."

Furthermore, WP:GA does not require the user Nominating to have actually contributed to the article, as far as I can tell. I honestly believe Katana to be an article of good quality and I am willing to address any issues a reviewer would have with it. With this in mind, I am adding Katana back to be reviewed as a good article once again. 192.77.12.11 (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to be quoting WP:GA, but what I see says:


 * Any editor, preferably one who creates or contributes to an article, who believes that the article meets the good article criteria, may nominate the article for an impartial reviewer to assess. Another editor may review the article after selecting it from a queue of good article nominations then evaluating it against the good article criteria.


 * Note the part that says, "...preferably one who creates or contributes to an article...". You might be capable of handling a GA nomination, although I find it hard to believe that, if your knowledge of the subject is that considerable, you haven't contributed to the article. There's also the fact that you would likely deny major contributors the chance to claim credit for having seen the page through to good article status, if you are the nominator. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that there would be other editors better suited than I to nominate the article, but none of them have Nominated it. I came upon the page and thought it fitting for GA status. I have had no contributions to the article because (in my opinion) there is nothing to improve.
 * Is there a way to encourage the article's active contributors to nominate an article for which they have contributed significant edits? Because I am not nominating this to claim credit for it, but simply because I do believe it is a Good Article. If it does not meet the criteria, or I cannot adequately support the GA status, then that would be determined in the Review stage, not before it.
 * 192.77.12.11 (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've started a thread on the article talk page, where you, and any others who want to, can chime in. I don't know of any prohibition against co-nominators. Let's see what people have to say there. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good Call, I'll keep an eye on it. Thank you. 192.77.12.11 (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

134340 Pluto
All the other minor planets have the MP number along with the name at the top of the info box -- 1 Ceres, 136199 Eris, etc. Is there a reason Pluto is the sole exception? — kwami (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There has been some discussion in the archives on having that number displayed, and it isn't in the infobox. I have to assume it's not there by consensus. Add to that fact that Pluto is the only one of the minor planets that wasn't always so. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true. 1 Ceres, 2 Pallas, 3 Juno, and 4 Vesta were planets for over 40 years in the 19th century before the term "minor planet" was invented.
 * There's even a precedent for probably the most famous body smaller than the big 8 and Pluto: Halley's Comet has the formal number 1P in the infobox as well. Double sharp (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Pluto's six-digit number seems to belie its importance, while the objects you mention have numbers that bespeak theirs. I know there's been discussion on the inclusion of Pluto's number. So, its not being included seemed to be a matter of consensus. Perhaps a new consensus has formed. I'll leave the page alone for now but won't be too surprised if someone else objects to Pluto's numerical designation's inclusion. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

HS2
Thanks for your work on the HS2 article. XAM2175 (T) 11:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Dhtwiki (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

James Madison
Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at James Madison. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Freoh (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * When it's a matter of experienced editors disagreeing, the result usually does hinge on numbers, especially when the "vote" is lopsided. According to Wikipedia:Consensus, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." One editor can't decide what concerns are legitimate against the many, unless those many are obviously wrongheaded in "respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The deletion policy you link to regards the deletion of articles, and I don't see how it's relevant to making changes to an article that is well established. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've re-started Noticeboard regarding User:Freoh if you could look at it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring and see (by the title, if nothing else) that it's not considered worth reporting on that page (and for the second time). While Freoh continues to edit the article, it has lately not been done contentiously as before. I see some merit in what Freoh wants to assert, however lacking in nuance some of his early expressions of it were. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sys ops David has suggested taking it to ANI on the Noticeboard I filed. You are by far the most experienced at Wikipedia of the three of us at the Madison Talk page adding Jtbobwaysf and myself, since you are the only one with over 10K edits here on Wikipedia of the three of us. The revert I did on the Madison bio page was in support of your revert there which was fully within BRD guidelines. If you can figure out the correct way to file the ANI which David from sys ops mentioned, then both Jtbobwaysf and myself would support you. Your BRD revert on the Madison bio page was fully valid. I've added some comments on the Madison Talk page mentioning you as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My advice, if you remember, was not to be quick in looking to the noticeboards as a solution. My experience in posting to such boards, except for those dealing with vandalism and page protection, is minimal. You and Jtbobwaysf have gone ahead, with the first attempt, at the edit warring board, being dismissed as both malformed and stale. The second attempt was treated dismissively as well. I was expecting more input, from those taking part in promoting the article to featured article status, on the article talk page itself, although I understand the reluctance to do so, given Freoh's persistence and the interminable dialog I'm having with them. I'm involved on that page because I feel responsible, having reverted Freoh's initial attempts, to engage in the discussion, not because I consider myself an expert on the Madison literature or what further statements belong in the article. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems now that he is saying that he is receptive to your progress with him on the Talk page; I've suggested there to Vanamonde that she list her 5 suggestions for the 5 cite tags to be put into change "X to Y" format in order to move forward and remove the cite tags. It looks like it might be better if you would offer the 5 edit change suggestions to him, since you appear to be the only editor making progress with him on the Talk page there. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see much, if anything, to change at all. The one point Freoh made that dovetailed with my reading was that Madison was concerned about property rights; but not necessarily concerned to protect a minority, as Freoh said. It could well have had to do with regulating settlement of the western territories, which were vulnerable to squatters and competing claims. Thus Madison could have been concerned with a well regulated expansion of ownership of real property, not just keeping it in the hands of a few. In any case, just mentioning "concern for property rights" wouldn't say very much (Madison was also concerned for political liberty, for a strong national government, for how to settle the war debt and veterans' claims, etc.). I also want more input from those of you who have been more continually involved in curating the article and taking it to near-featured-article status. What do *you*, who should have relative expertise in the matter, think? Dhtwiki (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair question. There is already a sibling article for James Madison and slavery which was split from the main article in April 2022 due to article size issues; I've just told Vanamonde about it on the Madison Talk page. It seems like a lot of this is already covered on that sibling article and its not clear that calling for an RFC will get much more done. Have you formulated an opinion about the 5 cite tags serially added to the article and the call for an RFC from Vanamonde; I mean, if the material is already covered substantially in the sibling article then why not refactor the parts of it which are of interest into the article and delete all the cite tags? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The only tag I remember being concerned with was that of bias or speaking in Wikipedia's voice with regard to quoting or paraphrasing Madison, when it was clear that it was Madison's thoughts being summarized, not that of Wikipedia's editors. So, I thought the allegation was unfounded. I haven't thought too much about the others, although I'm astonished that an article that seems to be passing at FAC can be legitimately tagged as such, however unlikely it is that such tags can be dismissed out-of-hand for the article merely having such a high status. Featured articles themselves can always stand improvement. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting comment. You appear to be the only editor who is able to communicate with him, and I'm thinking that you might be able to look at his last comments on the Madison Talk page. He appears to want three edits made on the Madison page which he presents in the format of change "X to Y", in order to remove all 3-4 of his template tags. Since you are the only one who can talk to him, then maybe you could comment on his change requests there or maybe just install them directly into the article if they look ok to you. Then all 3-4 tags can be removed at the same time. You seem to only one left to be able to communicate to him. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've given my detailed reply to the changes that Freoh suggested in tabular form. I see only two sections that they want to change, both changes not being improvements, in my opinion. I don't know why I am the only one who can talk to them. Nor am I the only one whose opinion should count in deciding what changes to allow. I think that you and others should address whatever tags there are. If after good-faith evaluation you find the rationales for their placement wanting, then you should say so. If Freoh, who seems to have made some more sensible edits at the article and has contributed at FAC, then refuses to have the tags removed, some recourse to dispute resolution probably is warranted. An article isn't likely to be passed at FAC with such tags in place. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reverts against that other editor on the 21st, John Quiggin, were appreciated; I was wondering if you also saw his other similar three edits from the day before on the 20th here: . I'm supporting all of your comments made yesterday on the Talk page for Madison, and I'm actually thinking that it might time to increase the page protection for "extended confirmed" due to the increased amount of odd editing on the page. My last Noticeboard request for Jtbobwaysf went poorly, as you pointed out above, and  if you know how to submit an effective RFPP for 'extended confirmed only' then it would only be a benefit to the Madison page and I'll support you as needed if you ping me from the Noticeboard. You have been the most patient editor of all on the Madison Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the earlier edits by John Quiggin, and they seem to have by now been reverted by someone else. I'm generally opposed to the use of "enslaver" or "enslaved people" on the grounds of wordiness and of removing the distinction between someone who actively reduces people from a free estate to that of bondage and one who inherits or buys those already enslaved. Not that either action is necessarily more evil than the other, but what's missing from the reevaluation of Madison on the basis of his being a slave owner is any real knowledge of how his slaves fared or how they would have fared had he done the "right" thing by emancipating them.
 * What's going on at the article is a content dispute by editors making plausibly well founded edits, not pure disruption or vandalism, which is what I I've used RFPP for in the past. I don't think an administrator would protect the page, especially since much of the activity has moved to the talk page. However, if a solid consensus forms against the challenge templates and their removal is resisted, that might be a situation that calls for intervention from the appropriate quarter. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Instructions from Vanamonde on the Madison Talk page appears to be to just insert his edit; if you can see your way to do that then it would be in agreement with Vanamonde and the tag could be removed. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing proof of the contention that Madison cared most about minority property rights. I see very possibly POV authors trying to read something into Madison's history. Have you checked your literature as to what the situation is? Do your sources support Freoh's language? I'm being accused of original research, but at least I've checked my award-winning history, and it doesn't support the change. So, to agree to Freoh's change would be yielding just to get this over with. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have a 'palatable' version of Antiok's edit, then you can add it into the ratification section and remove the template tag. Antiok is supporting you along with myself; that would be better I think than just another revert on the page. Any ideas or edit that you might try there? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd just leave it as it is. It seems that Freoh has little support for his take on Madison. If there is a fair reading of the literature that supports Madison being primarily concerned with minority property rights, rather than its just being a POV interpretation, I haven't seen it. If we need to have additional information, and those sources that were included, lets agree to that on the talk page. Antiok's version seemed fair to me, but I didn't look at it too closely. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Mass reversion
has previously asked you not to scatter different edits all in one edit-event, but you have continued. Could you please make an effort to fix first rather than mass reverting? I find it disruptive to have to run each individual edit past you on the talk page. Freoh (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Was Penlite addressing me in particular? The only person addressed past the original ping was you. Their further explanation was expressed generally, and I didn't see it as pointed at me. I do understand that if the original edit is contested and reverted, discussion takes place on the talk page until consensus is reached. That means that you are the disruptive editor by continuing to make what amount to already contested edits at the article. You have to run by more than me, as there are other editors who are objecting to your changes. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the explanation was addressed generally, but you were the only one putting different edits all in one edit-event, and I interpreted that comment as frustration with one of your edits in particular. Which of my edits were already contested? Freoh (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dhtwiki is too polite to answer; it was his edit that you improperly reverted according to Wikipedia policy to Bold reverts and discussion: BRD. On Dec 3 you made an edit which Dhtwiki found questionable and which he properly reverted on Dec 4 here . After that Wikipedia policy requires that discussion only on the Talk page to take place until consensus is reached. Instead of discussion, you then began edit warring by reverting Dhtwiki in the main article against Wikipedia policy for BRD. You can follow the link above to see which of your edits was contested. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , you've already taken this to WP:AN/EW, and explained that I am not edit warring. Please stop these repetitive attacks. Freoh (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No that's not what he said; he said to prepare the report for ANI, which any editor can still submit for your disruptive editing and contested edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was following the instructions for avoiding an edit war by adding cleanup tags. How was I being disruptive? Freoh (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is Freoh's revert against BRD dealing with Dhtwiki which is troubling. My own concern is that Dhtwiki is entitled to make his BRD revert on Dec 4th and that Freoh should not have forced his edit back into the article against BRD policy. Once Dhtwiki reverted him under BRD policy on Dec 4th then Freoh is required to make Talk page discussion until consensus is reached. Freoh has ignored BRD policy and forced his edit back into the article against BRD policy. Dhtwiki is entitled to make a revert under BRD policy without Freoh forcing his edit back into the article against Wikipedia BRD policy. This seems to be why sent Freoh a warning on Freoh's Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is not policy. The official policy recommends adding appropriate cleanup tags while seeking consensus. Freoh (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your making serial reverts against Dhtwiki in order to force your version of your edit into the article is normally considered to be against Wikipedia policy. If you are opposed to Wikipedia's instruction for following BRD then you should state your opposition here for further evaluation. You appear to be serially reverting against Dhtwiki by forcing your edits into the article and you appear to now be stating that you are opposed to Wikipedia's instructions for following BRD. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how my edits qualify as serial reverts, and I think you're misusing BRD. Freoh (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is policy, and the neutrality of what you're adding is so much of what is at issue. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are unsatisfied with the neutrality of my text. I'm asking you to fix the text you find problematic and discuss your concerns rather than simply mass reverting. Freoh (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If I spotted your edit as contained something that definitely needed fixing, such as a misspelling or malformed markup, I would make that correction myself, after reverting you. Otherwise, just reverting will seem to be the solution, because your edits are just that problematic; there isn't anything that I see as helpful. And you should continue the talk page discussion until you get positive support for a change, instead of thinking you can make contested edits just because people are slow to object to your proposals. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to take the time to parse the edits a little more closely. And it's not that you're slow to object; it's that your objections are based solely on original research, and you don't explain them even when repeatedly asked for clarification  . I find this stonewalling very frustrating. Freoh (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to take the time to parse the edits a little more closely. And it's not that you're slow to object; it's that your objections are based solely on original research, and you don't explain them even when repeatedly asked for clarification  . I find this stonewalling very frustrating. Freoh (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to take the time to parse the edits a little more closely. And it's not that you're slow to object; it's that your objections are based solely on original research, and you don't explain them even when repeatedly asked for clarification  . I find this stonewalling very frustrating. Freoh (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As I recall, my comment about not spreading multiple disconnected separate edits, in one edit event, was aimed at YOU. No one else. It was in reference to your initial edit that started this squabble. Please go back and read it in context. ~ Penlite (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Which original edit are you referring to? I made several, and I was under the impression that each was sufficiently localized. Freoh (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Somehow I was pinged here on an edit, but that seems to now be removed as I cant find my name. Without getting into this too much (I am not that interested in user behavior I am more interested in content and I am not an admin), it is my position that Freoh is in violation of WP:BRD and is engaging in widespread WP:SEALION across a wide range of articles. Generally what I have seen is revert, then WP:BLUDGEON the talk page, if he doesnt get a response he likes (seems rare as he is often in a WP:FRINGE position, then he will ping the editor that has opposed him if it is now ok to re-instate the content (and then will in some cases re-instate it). Then Freoh will plead ignorance of the action and ask many questions and again for details, info on the specific edit, etc (sealion welping). I did submit an ANI but the admins over there felt it was mal-formed and stale (indeed it was both). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your ping must have occurred here, which is an interesting edit for having a time stamp in the history that is slightly different from that in the signature. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of my content is a fringe theory? I'm not trying to bludgeon; which of my comments do you find repetitive? Freoh (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dhtwiki is correct to point out the difficulties with Freoh's opposition to following BRD and his long-term fringe fixation on "Howard Zinn"-related edits. Its been over a month of Freoh's opposition to following BRD and his fringe NPOV violation for his fixation on Howard Zinn. Since its been over a month of these contested edits and since Vanamonde from sysops states that she now has no particular support for Freoh at all at this time, then maybe its time for Dhtwiki to file an ANI as suggested by Daniel Case. Dhtwiki is the most experienced of the many editors opposed to Freoh's violations of Wikipedia policy for NPOV and possibly if he could file at ANI then one of the sysops editors there can explain to Freoh the disruption caused by nearly a full month of his violations of NPOV. You can also count on support from Jtbobwaysf, Antiok, and myself for this; just ping us from the ANI page for support. Even under the most patient of circumstances, one month seems too long for simple discussion with an editor like Freoh who still has no support on the Talk page. ANI as suggested by Daniel Case for Freoh's violations against Wikipedia policy for NPOV and Freoh's long-term fixation on "Howard Zinn"-related edits seems like something which Dhtwiki has the best handle on at this time. Could Dhtwiki consider submitting the Noticeboard report after one month on this situation. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'd like to remind you that my current proposal does not cite Howard Zinn (even though he is a reliable source). You're welcome to discuss it with me on the talk page if you feel like it could be more neutral. Freoh (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are still forcing your template tags into the article following your opposition to BRD policy. Dhtwiki reverted your edit on 4 Dec and you still are forcing your tag into the article following your opposition to Wikipedia instructions for BRD. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop bludgeoning. We've already discussed this. Freoh (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)