User talk:Doniago/Archive 10

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Citizen Kane
I wish to object to your callous revert of my good faith edits to the Citizen Kane article. A responsible editor would request citations to back up the edits. So I not only reverted your deletions, but I also included citations from Warner Bros. the current distributor of Citizen Kane. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN. An editor adding material is responsible for providing a reliable source at the time they add it. There is no policy requiring other editors to tag material for needing sources, and if I can identify the editor who added unsourced material I think it's less callous to notify them right off so they can improve their contribution than to let unsourced material float around the article and then have it removed some other time when the editor may not be aware (for that matter, I could have just reverted your edit and not notified you at all). As for good-faith, I noted that you'd been advised about provided proper sourcing before, so this was not a first-time occurrence, but rather a pattern. The advisory I provided made no presumption regarding your intentions. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting from WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag)." I use the latter which is more polite unlike your approach. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you like a cookie, then? Sorry, not sure what you're going for now other than possibly trying to come off as holier-than-thou. I would have tagged it if I hadn't known who added the material. Doniago (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability as I started a discussion on the subject under WP:BURDEN. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. Doniago (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)
Someone put A Good Day to Die Hard page with the year on the title link. The year of the artical title may need to removed since there are no disambiguation related to the title name. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like this got taken care of while I was busy with New Year's shenanigans. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was taken care of. They eventually found out the year on the title link was unnecessary. BattleshipMan (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 13
The page only has 6 issues left for it's GA and i sure we can fix that today, if you're up to it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:34 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree; please see Talk:Apollo 13 (film). JustinTime55 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Half of one... I'm not sure which specific issues RAP is concerned with, and I'm already developing an independent wiki that's taking up most of my time for anything beyond relatively simple edits. I'm happy to offer opinions though - per MOS:FILM the Cast section ideally should not be a simple list, which seems to be a point of concern on the talk page. That being said, the photos are, IMO, a non-constructive addition as it currently stands. I don't see the harm in improving the article to the point where it could likely pass GA and then nominating it, but I've never particularly been involved in such a discussion before. Doniago (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Josh Meyers
Thank you for catching (and reverting) my erroneous entry regarding Josh Meyers. I hastily assumed the car crash victim was "the other Josh Meyers" (same first/last, profession) without verifying the individual's middle name. Cheers,   BillCook (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I think it was actually caught by another editor, but when they removed the info they didn't provide any explanation for why they were doing so, which piqued my interest. Doniago (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

2263 IS The Fifth Element year!
2263 Alarm Clock — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamEtches (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am currently at work and my firewall is blocking that page. You'll either have to wait for another editor to speak to it or wait until I'm at liberty to view the image. Sorry for the delay. Doniago (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you might to look at this user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daylight_(film)&action=history

I think you better look at what MartinSFSA said when he edit a part of the 1996 movie Daylight. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of worthwhile content
Hi Doniago - I was wondering if you could explain this diff. In case you are not aware, merely being unsourced is not grounds for erasing. As is stated in the policy on verifiability, we do NOT require citations for everything which has been added, only for material which is "likely to be challenged". Even if you feel something is questionable, it is far preferable to simply examine the matter and where possible add a citation yourself (IPs seldom understand how to cite material), especially when the matter was so easily verified. (Wikipedia actually has a sourced article which confirms the information you deleted - Monopoly (game show)). Deleting worthwhile content solely on the grounds it is uncited does not help build the encyclopedia and is very discouraging to new users. Manning (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Update - the same question applies to this diff - ], which is also accurate, and easily verified/cited. Manning (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, your statements seem to be a matter of interpretation and perspective regarding "best policy" than based on anything explicitly stated in policy. Specifically, WP:MINREF makes it clear that removing unsourced content is a legitimate way of challenging it, and WP:BURDEN makes it clear that it is the responsibility of an editor adding or changing content to provide a reliable source. While, as you noted, it is not explicitly a requirement that information added be sourced, other editors in turn have a right to remove unsourced information that they encounter per the policies I have cited, though I will admit it may not be the "nice" or "best" way to address the situation.
 * Personally, I tend to believe that when unsourced information is submitted and the contributor can be readily determined, best practice is to ask that contributor to provide the source, since presumably if they added the information in the first place than they know where they came across it. To me, that seems eminently more sensible than asking another editor to come up with a reference on-the-fly. Your claim that IPs seldom understand how to cite material strikes me as somewhat spurious, given that there are advisory templates available, and which I use, that provide links to exactly that information. I am, of course, also willing to provide whatever guidance I can in terms of helping editors learn how to source material, though it is far from one of my own strong suits.
 * Frankly, I am of the opinion that material that is not sourced is inherently not worthwhile, but you are of course welcome to disagree. I would rather see a smaller Wikipedia with more reliable content than a large Wikipedia with large amounts of information that is not readily verifiable via citation.
 * In any case, while I understand your concerns, I also believe that my views (in fact, both of ours) are supported by current policy. Perhaps the issue then is that policy should be revised to more clearly address this matter.
 * Finally, I can't help feeling that it was slightly disingenuous of you to approach me about this while neglecting to point out that you were approached to do so by an editor who essentially was upset that when their edits were challenged consensus didn't go in the way they would have preferred. I will assume that you are objective enough that you did not come to talk to me with a preconceived bias. Good day. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As for your final point, no, not at all. I've been here way to long to be swayed by the comments of a random IP. My reasoning was that if I had phrased my question as "An IP came to me with a complaint" then the whole discussion takes the tone of "Ooh, I'm the big important admin and I'm taking sides in a fight", which I (a) find repugnant on all levels and (b) was certainly not my objective. I apologise if you found it disingenuous.


 * You seem like a very good editor. I will say I am disappointed by your statement "I am of the opinion that material that is not sourced is inherently not worthwhile". In my opinion that is contrary to the spirit of the entire project. But as noted, this is merely my opinion against yours, so there's no point in arguing. You are also absolutely correct in saying both of us could argue our positions very convincingly from a policy position, but I suspect neither of us is interested in that kind of pointless wikilawyering.


 * Anyway, I disagree with - but nonetheless respect - your approach, and I'm not going to argue that you should change. I do have a plan of action however - I'm coaching a brand new editor (he is a business colleague, his username is something 'duck' related, can't remember off-hand). I'm going to suggest he go through your edits and where he thinks he can restore (and properly cite) worthwhile information, he should do so. No offence is intended by this, I just see it as a good opportunity to get a new editor started. Thank you for your reply. Manning (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there! I'm a little out of sorts right now, but your message left me wanting to reply sooner rather than later. Please consider that a compliment.
 * I have to say that I'm very, very impressed by your response above. You show a great deal of civility and understanding there...more than I've come to expect given prior interactions with other editors with different viewpoints on this sort of matter. I appreciate the fact that you're content to agree to disagree on this, as I am, rather than turning it into a confrontation that I think we could both agree would likely do more harm than good on all fronts.
 * I fully support any effort to restore unsourced information with proper referencing, regardless of whose edits are involved. IMO, it would be little more than vanity on my part to believe otherwise. I'll also admit that my "worthwhile" comment, in retrospect, may have come across a bit more strongly than I intended.
 * You rebutted my final point rather well there, kudos. :) It probably reveals more than I'd like about my degree of cynicism that, when I saw your Talk page discussion, my first thought was, "Oh, so he's just coming here because someone put him up to it..." and I'll be the first to acknowledge that that was a rather uncharitable thought. That said, your tone was certainly mild enough that I had no reason not to AGF.
 * In any event, thank you for presenting your concerns to me in such a level-headed and civil manner and for respecting my views even if you do not share them. I do respect yours as well, and share your lack of interest in debating this further. This conversation was easily one of the most pleasant I've ever had with a dissenting editor. If this is typical of how you comport yourself here, you have earned yourself a supporter, and if there is ever a scenario in which you feel my input might be of value, please do not hesitate to approach me. Be well, and I tip my hat to you! Doniago (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad we've reached this point. Thanks for the barnstar, I chuckled :) Cheers Manning (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You have turned Black Sunday (1977 film) into a stump, other than the plot section. As said above, deleting worthwhile content solely on the grounds it is uncited does not help build the encyclopedia. I am posting this at WT:FILM - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice, the accusatory tone, and the courtesy of allowing me time to respond before you escalated the matter. Doniago (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome, and thanks for the Barnstar! Doniago (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatchet
Your telling me that a poster for an unrated version of Hatchet isn't enough to prove that it had an unrated release? If that's a reliable source not, then what is? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A text source rather than a picture would be preferred, I believe, especially if whatever information you added included information not specifically mentioned on the poster. You're welcome to start a discussion at the article's Talk page, and that way other editors could offer their input as well. Otherwise, I'm not even sure exactly what you're referring to...links would be helpful. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Please do not chastise me for adding things to Wikipedia. We are all part of this community. Thanks. Zpb52 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to be chastised for adding unsourced information to Wikipedia in violation of WP:V, then might I humbly suggest providing a citation next time? Seems pretty straightforward to me... Doniago (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding the simple fact that John O'Hurley hosted the show has to be sourced? Seriously? My God. Zpb52 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it obvious to anyone who hasn't seen the show? No? Then yes, it should be sourced. It shouldn't be so hard to find a reliable source for this, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. Doniago (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Stellen Skarsgard
Plenty of sources on Skarsgard expecting his eighth child, most of which are in Swedish. Here is one source in English: source. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why did you just re-add this information without including a reference? Doniago (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw it, then forget about where I saw it and added it anyway. Besides, I'm not good with citations anyway. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can relate, actually...and I'd missed this thread the first time around, sorry. I'm not exactly sure whether the link you provided there counts as a RS, as I've never heard of the site before, but if you want to add it I won't contest it. WP does have links to some pretty decent tools that can set up the cite info for you automatically. See WP:CITETOOL, I think. Doniago (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Al Pacino
i noticed that on every award there's a link, but ok i will put the link for that,,thanks for this notice :) is it right to bring the link from imdb ????hosam007 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically every award should be linked, though you can get around that if the award is discussed in the article proper and sourced there...though at that point it would be nice if the reference was copied to the filmography as well. You're welcome to tag any unlinked awards with to request that a citation be provided. It would be much better not to use IMDb, as per WP:RS/IMDb it's not considered a reliable source in general, but for an award I'm not sure anyone would make a real stink about it. That being said, most awards have their own websites these days, or there's possibly a news article somewhere discussing the appropriate award.
 * Please let me know if there's any way I can be of assistance, though sourcing is generally not amongst my stronger suits here. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * i checked the the official site and and i'm sure about now |here you can see it if you want, anyway thank you now i can put a link into an article it my first time :) cheers! hosam007 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Next Generation, season 1, episode 14: "11001001"
Dear Sir,

Am I adding my own research? I thought that I was simply updating a page with an apparent obvious fact. Should I have added the fact as a resource? Probably! lol If only we could think of all of the things that we should do. The information about the Bynars can be found by watching the episode and at the following website: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/11001001_%28episode%29. This is the exact location and quoted source:

Background Information Edit Story and scriptEdit

11001001 is: the number 201 in binary. 11.001001 is an approximation of Pi in binary (3.140625). the binary representation of the RET (Unconditional Return) Opcode for an Intel 8080 CPU (copied in the Z80 CPU) Hex C9, which in IBM's EBCDIC equals the letter I.       '''the character É in the ISO 8859-1 (Latin-1) and Windows-1252 character sets and also in Unicode each nybble (1100 & 1001) corresponds to names of the two pairs of Bynars on the Enterprise: 11 & 00 and 10 & 01.''' Each Bynar name represents one of four possible settings for a pair of bits.

The bold emphasis added being my own. Oh, with so much in life to be accomplished, if one could not be accepted for passing on correct information once in a while! Such are the quandaries of a soul in exile! Have a good day!

Sincerily yours,

Rick Wilson aka FuturePrimitive666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.241.133.46 (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Memory Alpha does not constitute a reliable source because it is a wiki, which means, just like Wikipedia itself, anyone can add information that cannot be verified. Even if the digits happen to correspond to the names of the Bynars, what's needed is a statement from someone involved with the production establishing that this is intentional rather than coincidence, or at least a third-party reliable source taking note of the fact. Doniago (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Plummer
Regarding the "Triple Crown of Acting" change that I made on Christopher Plummer's page that you deleted, the term is very much recognized. If you click on the Wikipedia page that leads to the actors that have won the "triple crown," you will see that it is indeed a real term, and there are other actors who have won it. Another actor that has notably won the triple crown with an Emmy, a Tony and an Oscar is Geoffrey Rush, which you will find on his Wikipedia page.

To confirm, the LA Times also uses the term: http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2009/06/tony-awards-news-2468013-geoffrey-rush-earns-acting-triple-crown-with-tony-award-win-for-exit-the-ki.html

Polinerd101 (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd recommend then re-inserting the statement that Plummer has "won" (not sure that's the best term in this case) the Triple Crown of Acting either with a source that explicitly states so or that at least establishes how he's met the criteria. Is there perhaps enough material about this to create an article on the subject, or specifically mention the term in the article that lists other actors who qualify for it? In any case, I'm concerned that without either a more specific link or a source, it looks like something that doesn't really exist; hence my cautionary deletion. Doniago (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:CITE
Thanks for your "heads-up". I was aware of the caveat on using other wikis, but when I looked at wp:cite a moment ago, I couldn't locate it. Can you point me to the correct para; I would like to review it. WP:CITE is a guideline not a policy and, as such, permits common sense. In the circumstances, it seemed to me that adding ODM info (I don't recall having done anything else.) is unlikely to be libellous (the great worry with living bios) and, if the amend is challenged (as you have), then it's removed (as you have). Most of the updates I've done recently have been on Russian bios and it would be reasonable to reuse Russian wiki, as long as I make it clear that I have done so. In the 2 cases that you reverted, it seems that the awards were credible - do you have specific info or are you removing all uncited info (this will keep you busy!)? Regards. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure I'm following you, so I apologize if there's any miscommunication here.
 * WP:CITE is more about how to cite sources then what to cite. As far as citing wikis go, I think you'd want WP:USERG, which covers using sources with user-generated content, but what it basically boils down to is that while copying info from other wikis is good in theory, it would really fail WP:V unless a reliable source is copied over with the information. The other issue with copying from a wiki, of course, is that the other wiki's article could change or even be deleted, destroying any ability to verify the info that way.
 * As far as removing unsourced info, my policy is that if I can easily identify the contributing editor I'll usually remove it and notify them of the policies about sourcing information. If I can't identify the contributor I'll tag the information and give it a while (normally at least a few months) before taking any further action. But per WP:BURDEN, information, even probably true info like awards and such, really shouldn't be being added unless a citation is being provided as well.
 * Cheers! Doniago (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I followed your reference to WP:CITE. BTW, you reversed 2 of my updates, which I've reinstated. One I've sourced elsewhere and the other (Swigert) is sourced from the NASA bio, already listed as a reference. The problem here may be that, although info can be sourced, it hasn't been cited, and this holds for much of the article. I don't have a problem with your query, not at all, but is there a reason that the same standard wasn't applied to the rest of the (uncited) article?
 * Following your later, more helpful, references adds to the debate! WP:BURDEN gives editors the right (duty?) to remove info unsupported by an inline citation (which, I repeat, could be true of the entire first few sections of Swigert). But it also suggests responsibilities for the remover, such as consultation, tagging with "cn" or looking oneself (this would have found verifiability in the NASA page); also, Wikipedia:Verifiability deals with "Verifiability", not "Verified", as per the debate at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. I seem to recall that strict use of citation is relaxed where info is uncontentious - which I suggest is true of ODMs, I can try to find (verify!) this assertion, if necessary.
 * The possibility of subsequent loss of backup from wiki articles is true, of course; but it's also true of any other web source - what's the distinction? Please define "user-generated", this could apply to everything on the net!
 * Please be reassured that although I'm defending a way of working in a particular circumstance, I have no wish to get into a fight - this is too interesting. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice: Doniago's reverts, only due to lack of citing
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Link to section: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

DMahalko (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)