User talk:RW Dutton

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Van Tucky 02:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Tim Peters (software engineer)
Please use your space, don't publish a template.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2018 (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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Much appreciated, thank you! RW Dutton (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring with an archive bot
Please don't edit war with the archive bots, they're just going to keep repeating the same action - they're bots. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I wasn't unaware of the possibility: I chose to unarchive my request, wait to see what if anything the bots did, and only then, if necessary, worry about how to prevent them from doing it again. Now that we are here, however, how can I unarchive my request in such a way that the bot won't promptly rearchive it? RW Dutton (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Links Galore"
The "Links Galore" links you added on numerous pages are WP:USERGEN. Those are not acceptable. Are those spreadsheets of your own doing? Veverve (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I am not the creator or owner of "Links Galore" and I've never contributed anything to it (just yet, at least). But it seems that the most appropriate place to have this discussion would be on Talk:Patrologia_Graeca, the talk page for Patrologia_Graeca where you performed your edits, rather than here. RW Dutton (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But you have added links of those types on many pages, hence why I took the discussion here. Veverve (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless I believe that Talk:Patrologia_Graeca is a more appropriate place for this discussion, for a couple of reasons. One reason is that Patrologia_Graeca is where there is currently an actual edit dispute. RW Dutton (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am bringing the dispute to all articles you have added those types of links to, I am asking you to remove all those additions of those USERGEN links. Veverve (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to dispute my "Links Galore" edits on other pages besides Patrologia_Graeca then IMO the best thing to do is to create Talk page entries on some or all of those other pages as well with a link to the Talk:Patrologia_Graeca discussion. If you would prefer, I will create the Talk page entries for all the other relevant pages after you have created the Talk:Patrologia_Graeca discussion. Among other things, this will ensure that people watching Patrologia_Graeca, and any other pages you choose to include, are informed about this discussion and have a chance to participate. RW Dutton (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are asking for the creation of a thread for each of the dozens (I count 30 in your last 500 edits) of additions you made of those USERGEN links. You have added them, and you oppose removing them without giving any reason (Status quo stonewalling). The thing is, USEGEN are not allowed, see WP:NOBLOGS.
 * Do you not see the problem with 1) creating such a number of threads when you are the one adding the problematic content, and 2) keeping such links in EL ections? Veverve (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to create a large number of threads on various different talk pages, then surely the answer is to create just one thread, on the Talk page for the one page where an actual edit dispute currently exists, as I had suggested. I do not accept that I am the one responsible for the delay here, and I specifically reject your suggestion that I have been delaying deliberately. But since this now seems to be going around in circles, and since indeed I don't want to delay a substantive discussion, I'm ready to leave this aside, for now, and begin that discussion here instead.
 * This is a list of some of the sites or pages which are linked to by English Wikipedia to provide online access to old scholarly editions. The links generally appear in the External links section of the page about that edition (or sometimes its editor). None of them was added by me; none of them (except for one ...) is "Links Galore".
 * Patrologia Graeca:
 * Roger Pearse (User:Roger Pearse)'s list of PG PDFs. This is a page on Pearse's personal blog, hosted under a personal domain name, and clearly generated by a blogging engine.
 * Acta Sanctorum:
 * https://www.heiligenlexikon.de 's Acta Sanctorum page . A personal web page: it seems unclear if the author has any particular credentials or reputation
 * Roger Pearse again
 * The Loeb Classical Library:
 * Loebolus. ("Links Galore's" Loeb listing happens to have been in large part based on this, BTW.) The author happens to have a technical role in digital humanities at a major university (Duke), but this is still just his personal webpage
 * Bibliotheca Teubneriana:
 * A Teubner a Day This blog is the direct ancestor of "Links Galore", compiled by the same author. This link until I  in April.
 * Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers:
 * Christian Classics Ethereal Library
 * Internet Sacred Text Archive Both of these have English Wikipedia entries, but they're both personal websites by people who don't seem to have credentials or a publication history as humanities academics
 * I could give more examples, but that should be enough for now. Is it your claim that "Links Galore" is WP:USERGEN and linking violates WP:NOBLOGS but that these other links are OK? It's hard to see those could both be true. In fact "Links Galore" probably has better bona fides than most of these others. The Chris Francese who offers a pretty generous testimonial on the comments page—"Thank you for this astonishing work. So useful to all scholars of antiquity. Bless you!"—is a professor of Classical Studies at Dickinson College and the project director of the Dickinson College Commentaries. (He Tweeted about "Links Galore" at around the same time, so you can be reasonably sure it's real and the same guy. However I have nothing to do with Prof. Francese, Dickinson or the DCC, and I don't speak for them.)
 * Alternatively you could say that all of these links are bad and should probably go. But, first, that seems to be out of line with standard practise up to now. There seems to be little history of editors using WP:USERGEN or WP:NOBLOGS as reason to delete links to directory sites listing OCRed texts or scans of scholarly editions. Second, that's probably for the best. I don't believe it is at all clear that WP:USERGEN or WP:NOBLOGS should be interpreted as prohibiting those links, especially since those links are, for the time being, often pretty unavoidable when it comes to the pretty important objective of linking Wikipedia discussions of old scholarly eds. to the actual sources themselves. RW Dutton (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I now also note that the libraries of at least two major US universities direct their users towards "Links Galore":
 * The University of Missouri Libraries' Religious Studies: Open Access Materials page of their Library Guides is mostly devoted to "Links Galore"
 * The University at Buffalo Libraries' Classical Philology: Primary Texts page of their Research Guides lists "Links Galore" as a resource for both Teubners and Loebs.
 * Would everyone now be OK to now restore the "Links Galore" link to Patrologia Graeca? RW Dutton (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I still oppose you adding those USERGEN. Veverve (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)