User talk:Dhtwiki

This is Dhtwiki's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 30 days

Archiving live links

Hi there! Can you point me to the consensus you mentioned in this revert? I haven't heard of it before, and I'm not seeing it in Wikipedia:Link rot or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. I did find your post here, but that's doesn't show a consensus that would support your revert... Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: See this discussion on the talk page, where there isn't as much consensus as I imagined (which is probably why no change to the guideline has been made), but where the issues are laid out in detail. I usually don't revert unless there's a lot of text being added (your addition amounted to over 29k), which adds to download and setup time (especially on underpowered netbooks). Also, you're probably not checking for citation usefulness with such massive additions. The Link Rot policy really only justifies a prophylactic addition of a link when each original citation is made and where the editor is more likely to check for such usefulness. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are other relevant threads on that page, as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the link! If there's no consensus on the issue, I've got to question why you're reverting these edits instead of working to get a consensus one way or another... The link rot how-to guide, not policy, does not say anything in either direction about proactively adding archival links. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to get consensus, by involving myself in the discussions. Why do you think to add massive amounts of text to articles without pre-clearing such additions on the talk page of each article? Why is that not disruptive? If you've read the discussions, you've seen that there are others with concerns similar to mine. What do you think you're accomplishing? You're not making the archiving happen; there are often better ways of handling dead links; etc. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From those discussions, it's clear that the practice has supporters and detractors. So the heart of my question there, albeit not phrased well, was to ask why you aren't organizing a RfC on the topic. For things like this, reverting without a basis in policy only ticks people off.

Disruptive editing is defined as "a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia", which pre-archiving links just plain isn't, absent a larger consensus. Plus, WP:BRD exists. Please assume good faith. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guideline that supports what you're doing, except for a common misinterpretation of what the Linkrot guideline allows. Again, what is it that you think you're accomplishing? If you have no good idea of how you're improving the referencing of articles, then why should you be allowed to add to everyone's download and rendering times? How is such misuse of resources, in spite of several people detailing why it's a useless exercise, not be considered pure disruption? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm confused. Where, exactly, does the Wikipedia:Link rot how-to guide or the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking guideline prohibit pre-archiving? Have I missed it? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "pre-archiving"? Are you still thinking that what you're doing causes the archiving to happen? "WP: Link rot" not only makes it clear that that's not the case, but it also details how IABot and other bots work automatically to link to archive snapshots *only when necessary*. The Linking article mostly deals with wiki-links, not external links created through the citation templates. In any case, what part of those articles supports what you're doing? I didn't even see the text that I see as the cause of people's misconceptions during my latest quick read-through. Another point is that if I don't quickly revert such massive additions, subsequent editing will make it practically impossible to do so. That probably adds to the apparent abruptness of my reversions. Yet another point is that adding archive links makes for greater clutter that editors have to wade through, if they're editing plain text in raw editing mode (i.e. without "visual editor" or somesuch enabled). That last was actually my original objection to such additions. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly it's not a "common misconception" but just not covered in the how-to guide? If so, I'll just circle back to the RfC point I made earlier. Beyond that, I'm going to disengage from this discussion because it's way too heated for what is in the end a very small issue. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Nero capitalization question

Sorry to bother you, but why does the following Wikipedia rule not apply to Emperor Nero? I copied this verbatim from Wikipedia's rules about capitalization of nouns. Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, prime minister, leader of the opposition, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases: When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII. Nero is his name, so why is 'Emperor' not capitalized as it precedes his name? Thank you for your time. Lime green k (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lime green k: Because the text was "Roman emperor Nero" (description) not "Emperor Nero" (title). I indicated in my edit summary the subtle but real difference. Nero never had as a title the Latin equivalent of "Roman Emperor Nero". Dhtwiki (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October blitz bling

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Dhtwiki for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE October 2023 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 13:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that transport of stone blocks only plays a role with..... etc.

Please comment, do you have a suggestion for different text? I think it is impo Note that transport of stone blocks only plays a role with the hypothesis where the pyramids were built with quarried stones. With the hypothesis in which the pyramids were built with cast stone (Geopolymer) there are no transport problems, because the mortar could simply be transported in small quantities. avandalen 22:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avandalen (talk • contribs)

@Avandalen: In future, please indicate the article where this happened, at least, if not the actual diff, which must be this one, where I removed the following text with the edit summary of "Unexplained, dubious, argumentative, etc."

Note that transport of stone blocks only plays a role with the hypothesis where the pyramids were built with quarried stones. With the hypothesis in which the pyramids were built with cast stone (Geopolymer) there are no transport problems, because the mortar could simply be transported in small quantities.

"Unexplained" is obvious, as you left no edit summary. "Dubious" because the whole "hypothesis" of the stones being cast, instead of quarried, is a new one to me (also calling it "geopolymer" seems much too modern for the ancient Egyptians); it should be backed by strong evidence. "Note that..." is what I meant by argumentative, which makes the text less than encylopedic in tone. "Etc." is because there's possibly more to object to. Also, please make a habit of signing your name with four tildes (see Wikipedia:Signatures). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To promote WikiLove

Cookies!

ThatOneWolf has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dhtwiki (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a solution

Hello Dhtwiki, I would like to bring your attention to an issue regarding an article, India national football team at the Asian Games. I've nominated the article for the DYK nomination where it has been advised to go for copyedit for which I have requested at GOCE. Though the task of copyedit has been taken by one of the participant editor, however, due to personal reason they are not able to continue the copyedit. Their response is at the talk page here. So, my humble request to you would be, kindly ask someone from GOCE to copyedit rest of the article. Will be thankful to you. Pinging @Miniapolis:, @Zippybonzo: too as are coordinators of the project. Also pinging @BlueMoonset:, since DYK is concerned. Thank you all. Drat8sub (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]