User talk:Doniago/Archive 15

Your reversion on crosswords
Hi got your note and reversion of my edits to the crossword page. Not sure how what I added could qualify as original research. First off, your blanket reversion meant that not just was the major addition of crossword construction info reverted but so were a number of edits throughout to clean up the article which was clumsily written in places.

Your comment said that "Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions." Cruciverb.com is by all standards a reliable source -- I have written a number of puzzles for major outlets and Cruciverb is the only forum on the web that synthesizes crossword info for all these outlets; contributors include all top constructors and editors. When it comes to the topic of crossword construction, it's the top source.

As to the specific points I mentioned under crossword construction: I cited the notes on crossword construction on Cruciverb as a reliable source: these notes are by varoius editors and constructors, including Nancy Salomon, Roy Leban, Rich Norris, Manny Nosowsky, and Mel Rosen. As to the reliability/importance of their contributions: Xwordinfo.com tracks publication data for the New York Times crossword (no known source exists for other crosswords). Of those mentioned, Salomon has 185 puzzles published in the Times, Norris, 185, Noswosky 246, Leban 12, etc. All have published numerous puzzles in other outlets than the Times, although I have no source for those. In addition, Norris edits the LA Times and Crosswords Club crossword puzzles. (See cruciverb.com links for source info on his editing.) All the key elements I list: 180-degree rotational symmetry, construction of a theme, symmetry of theme answers, consistency of theme, grid sizing, checking of squares, 16% cap on black square usage, theme entries must be longer than non-theme entries, avoidance of profanity and obscurity, usage of software, etc. can be found in the various articles on Cruciverb http://www.cruciverb.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=21 http://www.cruciverb.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=59 http://www.cruciverb.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=22 http://www.cruciverb.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=70 http://www.cruciverb.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=19 http://www.cruciverb.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=9 (see individual publisher specifications) For example, my addition stated that the most widely used crossword software is Crossword Compiler; checking the source I provided (fourth link above) shows that of those publishers which accept electronic submission of puzzles, Crossword Compiler (CCW) is the only one they all accept, and for four of the five, is the preferred means of submission (the fifth expressed no preference).

I went to great lengths to source that section, which I felt was a critical contribution to the page, so I was surprised by your reversion. I hope the above info will convince you that (a) I did not perform original research; (b) that the info provided was from reliable sources, and that you'll undo the reversion.

If there's specific aspects of what I added that bother you, please let me know and I'll provide sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.235.212 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any inline citations provided in the information that you added, but it's certainly possible that I overlooked them. Please feel free to re-add the information with the appropriate citations, and I'll let you know if I have any concerns at that point. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture references
Not totally sure how to use this, but you erased my edit on references in other media. How was my providing a reference to it being mentioned in THE OFFICE disruptive? I am not quite sure what the problem was... I had just watched the show and it was undoubtedly accurate. I also referenced the show. In addition, I referenced the show itself. Also, References in other media is just that and a pop culture reference isn't viable, but the Leverage reference stands? User talk:71.182.195.186: Difference between revisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.195.186 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure why you put your note where you did, but I took the liberty of moving it to the bottom of my talk page, where new threads should generally be started.
 * There's a note in that article specifically asking that pop culture references specifically include secondary sourcing establishing their significance. You appeared to ignore that note, which is why I gave you the notice. When we add pop culture references, we should include a citation to establish that the reference was in some way significant. Wikipedia articles shouldn't contain collections of trivia, so we establish non-triviality via the sourcing. WP:IPC discusses this in more detail. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, it's helpful to link to the article that you have a concern about as well, so that I could check my own edits if necessary. You're also welcome to discuss this at the Talk page for the article itself if you'd like input from other editors. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Synchronous Motor - Thanks from this side too
Hi Doniago. Thanks for your friendly note. I regret to admit that the atmosphere that some editors generate often rubs off on me and I find myself saying things I shouldn't have said, or saying things in ways I shouldn't have said them. Too easily influenced, I guess. Anyway, your note is a much appreciated reminder that nice things can happen if one is nice. And then sometimes I think I am being nice and find that I am mortally offending someone with a different cultural background! Maybe I should use more smileys! Well, I thought I would come over here to say this, and I stumbled over the suggestbot stuff, and saw the Glutaric acid item... Hmmm... Let's see now... Yeah. Must go off and think about nettles (and find citations of course ;-) ). Meanwhile, all the best in any festivities coming your way. And after, of course! Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought you expressed your feelings on the matter with a great deal more courtesy and respect than several of the editors involved in the RFC have exhibited, and given the course of the RFC it certainly would have been easy enough to "jump on the bandwagon". I won't pretend I'm satisfied with how it developed...I would have preferred that it had never come to that, and still feel that ultimately it would have been ideal if an editor had simply provided citations to de-fang the entire situation...but...there it is, I suppose. We'll see what happens next. Unfortunately my interest in the article itself has largely been poisoned by the debate, and I fear for its quality in the long-term.
 * Ah, sorry, I got a little ranty there I suppose...but anyway, yes, I very much appreciated your tone even if I disagreed with your perspective. Honestly I think WP would run a lot more smoothly if there was a larger effort by the community to be civil with each other and WP:AGF, especially when there's disagreement.
 * Best wishes for you during the holiday season, and I wish you happy editing in '13! If there's ever an issue where you feel my expertise might be useful, please don't hesitate to get in touch! Doniago (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too early or too late for an ANI. ANIs are for fire fighting. There is no fire at the moment. The RfC has a long way to run wait and see how that develops first. -- PBS (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm hoping that it won't ever get to that point, but if it wasn't obvious, I never expected and certainly never wanted it to become the boondoggle that it has. Thanks again for your involvement with it. Doniago (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a compromise, but if you will not join and make an edit to the article and add citation needed to the sentence or paragraph you most think needs it, then the RfC will close with not consensus reached. -- PBS (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your idea, and I'm fine with it, but I wasn't seeing anyone else supporting it. If you're willing to cover my back if I go ahead and do that...and I'm pretty sure someone's going to go postal the second I tag, or at least remove, a sentence...I'm willing to make the first move. Doniago (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of covering anyone's back it is a matter of compromise and that is often how how a consensus is built. If you add a tag and it is removed then I will ask why, and the building of a consensus can resume. If it is ignored then after a week we ask anyone object to the tagged texts removal and if anyone does object then I will ask why and the building of a consensus can resume. Best option someone will provide a source, in which case another sentence or paragraph can be tagged and the process starts again and the second time around there is a precedence from the first round. -- PBS (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given how the conversation seems to have evolved so far, what I fear it's going to become is a matter of me tagging a sentence or paragraph, and then one of the editors who favored "Proposal B" either swooping in immediately or swooping in when the material is removed and fighting tooth and nail to keep the material retained without sourcing...possibly showing the same lack of civility that I think has been exhibited in several of the comments on the Talk page to date. But hopefully it won't come to that. Anyway, here goes nothing... Doniago (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is now closed but I think the difference between now and a month ago with an increase from 0 (not even a Reference section) to over 30 inline citations  (including  multiple citations) is a vast improvement. -- PBS (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Shame it took the effort it did. As it is my interest in the article, somewhat peripheral to begin with, is all but dead. I'm also not thrilled that the ANI filing was subverted and ultimately disappeared due to inactivity. I'm left wondering whether anyone really learned anything from the whole experience. But at least some good came from it. Thanks again for your help. Doniago (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added my thanks, in two ways: 1) I've added a comment about this to the "Well done" section on the Synchronous Motor Talk page, and 2) I've awarded Doniago a barnstar. (this is something I've only very rarely ever done in the past.) Keep up the good work! N2e (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Jurassic Park (film)
You are one of the article's contributors, so I invite you to join in the discussion that review its status as the Featured Article. Alternatively, you may be bold to improve the article. --George Ho (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! Probably going to be at least a week before I could do anything about it though; I'm about to embark on vacation. Poor me. :) Doniago (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2013 (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) 03:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler
I'm bad at using these talk pages so excuse me if I am doing this wrong. I am JTheGoblinKing and you keep changing my edit to Vlad the Imapaler which removes the name of his first wife as being a Bathory. The fact is the first wife's name is lost to history. You're asking me to provide proof that she is not the Bathory woman that keeps getting listed. But there is no proof that his wife was the woman they keep listing. Cnaejna Bathory was never his wife.

Sources:

http://www.vladtheimpaler.info/wives.html

In search of History: the Real Dracula - A History channel Documentary which can be found on Youtube.

In Search of Dracula - an older documentary narrated by Christopher Lee.

Now as for his suffering physical beatings and abuse at the hands of the Turks while he was a child hostage... Well, I thought everyone knew about that but you need proof?

http://mises.org/daily/6244/The-Economics-of-Dracula

There you go.

And here:

http://www.ciaoromania.co.uk/vlad-tepes-dracula.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTheGoblinKing (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi J, firstly you should generally add new comments to the bottom of a Talk page. No big deal. :)
 * It sounds like you've got sources for your information, so it should be easy enough to update the article. WP:CITE discusses how you can format references, but I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about that. If other editors dispute your changes, you should start a discussion at the Talk page for the article itself so that interested editors can weigh in and a consensus can be established.
 * Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
12 in a single day, two within a minute of each other, 5 on 5 separate articles within 4 minutes. Sorry, trying to clean the dishes. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming those are large-scale deletions (more than a sentence or two), that does sound pretty alarming. If the editor's only explanation is, "the information is unsourced", and they're not willing to consider moving the information to the Talk page instead, or at least reducing the frequency of such edits, I think you might have a case for disruptive editing. Doniago (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence the RFC/U. But at the moment, he's being held up as a Champion of the State and statues are being erected in his honour. He hasn't actually deigned to comment since his first response. I suspect, but don't know, that there might be some off-wiki canvassing going on. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 15:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...when do I get a statue? (pout) Doniago (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(by Alexey): Windows Phone 8: It uses USB-MTP for sync. I have tried Lumia 820 myself. I don't have used any reliable sources. Why did you remove it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technologov (talk • contribs) 08:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really sure why this was inserted here...and not sure I understand what you're saying. I removed the information because you didn't include a reliable source, which you should do in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! Doniago (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently this will never die...at WT:VERIFY someone just brought up the RFC and apparently painted it as a situation where disruptive editing occurred because uncontroversial information was being challenged. I was tempted to point out that it became controversial the moment the people who claimed it was accurate couldn't or wouldn't provide sources, but only noticed it several days after the fact...and troll-feeding and all... (shakes head) Doniago (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a "for the record" comment to that discussion at WT:VERIFY, relative the article (poorly sourced, much better now) and the alleged disruption. N2e (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Hopefully this will be the last we hear of it. (fingers crossed) Doniago (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In the Mouth of Madness

 * WP:RS/IMDb - IMDb shouldn't be used for citations in most cases. Is another source available? Doniago (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

about the IMDB

 * I think the policy I linked you to is pretty clear... if you have questions about it the best place to ask would be on the Talk page for it. Doniago (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2013 (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) 14:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding your edit/undo on King Kong (2005 film)
I noticed that in the edit of history of King Kong (2005 film), you undid the edit of 113.161.86.11 when that editor added a interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this article in this diff. In your undo reasoning, you stated the reason why you undid that edit was due to Wikidata. However, it seems like in the process, you did not verify to see if that link was on the Wikidata entry for the English article, Q160215. The link to the Vietnamese link was not on that Wikidata entry when I checked it, so I added it; thankfully, another editor added that interwiki link back to the King Kong (2005 film) article for me to catch. Just a friendly suggestion here: I would recommending checking Wikidata before removing interwiki links to verify that the foreign language link has been added to the English article's applicable Wikidata entry, especially since in this case, it wasn't there when you performed your undo. This way, no good information is lost. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I only removed it because the edit had been auto-tagged and I was under the impression that meant reverting was okay. My bad though, sorry about that! Doniago (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. This reason here is why I'm very careful with these interwiki addition/removal tag edits currently; there's a lot going on right now with Wikidata. Once the integration completes, I'm sure this will be a lot more seemless in figuring out what edits are constructive, and what can be reverted. But, that time is quite a ways in the future. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Arrested Development is a complete mess
I'm afraid I may have prematurely reverted an edit you made to the AD episode "The Ocean Walker"--my knee-jerk instinct was to make the articles look consistent, assuming that there had be some sort of previous discussion on the subject, but I can't find any record of it. Now I find that most articles have the extensive trivia sections while some others do not. I think it's open to debate whether some of the trivia is necessarily unsourced--since the program is so self-recursive, they're arguably just referencing the primary source. Further, this information seems valuable to some extent, since the excessive recursivity of the show is one of its most notable characteristics. Nevertheless, the articles are too long-winded, and much of the material is either inconsistent from article to article or of questionable value in the first place. As the more veteran Wikian, what do you think is a good way to proceed to clean this mess up? MaRoWi — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaRoWi (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel Wikipedia's policies on trivia are pretty clear. IMO, unless the trivia is somehow of encyclopedic value or a secondary source has made note of it (establishing that it's considered significant in some manner outside of the show), it should be removed. There are plenty of websites out there that fans of the show can peruse if that's where their interest lies. Doniago (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at the Arrested Development project talk page, though it doesn't appear to be being actively used. I've linked to it at the talk page for the article as well. If nobody speaks up I'll likely remove the info again, though I'll give it at least a week or so. Honestly I'm not even sure the episode is notable enough to have its own page, especially since it was tagged for notability concerns some time ago and nothing's been done about it. Guess we'll see what happens. Doniago (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Undo issue
Regarding the undo you've made on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_elements,_materials,_isotopes_and_atomic_particles, there is evidence that it is of significance. http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Dragonstone So, is it allowed for it to return? A random person 23:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOPbottle (talk • contribs)
 * Wikis aren't reliable sources because anyone can edit them, but perhaps that wiki in turn has a link to a reliable secondary source that discusses the item's significance in pop culture? Doniago (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Kobayashi Maru
Hi Doniago. Regarding the undo you've made on Kobayashi Maru. I feel that my edit was entirely valid for the "References in other media" section. The episode of The Office that I mentioned did in fact refer to the Kobayashi Maru. This is a perfect example of a reference in other media. Please reply as to why you feel this was a disruptive edit. Best, figz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figz (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I called the edit disruptive, but pop culture references should include a secondary source that establishes the significance of the reference in some way. WP:IPC discusses this at length. It's not enough to say that X referenced Y, what we need is a third-party source that took note of the occurrence of the reference. Otherwise we could argue that every time The Simpsons references Citizen Kane should be included...and WP articles shouldn't include that sort of indiscriminate list. Hope this helps!
 * Actually apparently in this case I did say your edit appeared disruptive because the article already had a note in the section you added to stating that secondary sources should be provided and that items w/out secondary sourcing might be removed. Doniago (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2013 (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) 12:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ingress Exotic Matter in List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles
Hey Doniago, First I'd better add I am not that familiar with the workflow, so please tell me if I am doing something wrong. You wrote "please provide secondary sources to establish signficance". Would this be sufficient?: http://ingresswiki.org/wiki/Exotic_Matter Also, if it helps, here is a talk on google plus that sparked my edit, it has replies from offical Ingress account. Pasted there User:Jorm's reply: anyways, the answer is this: there's no citation of significance. GuySoft (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Guy, the link you provided wouldn't be sufficient because wikis are not reliable sources, as anyone can edit them; this is the same reason we're not allowed to use WP articles as references. I'm currently unable to open the google plus link, so I can't speak to that. Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jurassic Park
You've just on the Jurassic Park article. This is just a heads-up stating the content was in fact sourced, with the source cited alongside the fact further up the article. I'm not planning on re-reverting, because I would have reverted if I'd seen the change earlier anyway; not because of the citation, but because it's almost word for word stated in the lede. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it, in case stuff gets sticky further down the line. drewmunn talk 13:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! Best practice would probably be to include the info sourced in the article body and briefly mention it in the lead, with no source being necessary there. I'll take a look over it and make changes if I think any are warranted. Thanks again! Doniago (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Babe (1995 film)
Hi Doniago, Bear with me - I'm in no way a Wikipedia power user so I'm just trying to figure out how this works. Rather than removing the entire "Music" section I created for the article on the 1995 film Babe, can you discuss with me which elements in that section need to be sourced? I know that all of the information I provided is correct, but I'm not sure how to cite all of it. In the case of Cantique de Jean Racine (Fauré), I can provide a link to a different performance of the piece that is clearly the same work of music, but I'm not sure what else I would do. I worked hard on those links, so please advise what's the best way to keep them up there. Thanks - Kevin
 * Hi Kevin...I'm happy to discuss your information, but I feel it would be best to only include it once it's up to Wikipedia's standards. In the meantime, you can create a "holding space" for your information if you'd like; see WP:Sandbox for more information about that.
 * I'd recommend reading WP:V and WP:RS. The former discusses Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability, which essentially boil down to "readers should be able to verify information that you include". The latter discusses reliable sources, which are what can be used to establish verifiability. WP:CITE discusses the specifics of including and formatting reliable sources.
 * I don't necessarily doubt that the information you added is correct; the issue is that you didn't provide reliable sources, and we shouldn't include information that readers won't be able to verify. Even saying "X is based on Y" when it's "obvious" that that's the case isn't acceptable, as that constitutes original research; we need a reliable source making the connection for us.
 * Now, it's definitely possible for you to insert information without providing a citation, but on the flip side any editor can come along at any point and request a citation, and once that occurs the burden is on you or any editor who wishes the information to be included to provide a source. Put another way, it's "best practice" to provide a source at the time you add information, rather than creating a situation where other editors (possibly ones with fewer resources than you have) have to hunt one down.
 * I hope this helps with the basics of what your information needs in order to measure up to WP standards. I'd be happy to provide more specific commentary, but I thought it might be best to lay the groundwork from a WP policy standpoint first. Thanks for coming to me with your concerns!
 * Oh, one last note...generally when posting to Talk pages you should sign your posts, which you can do automatically by adding four tildes (~) to the end of your message. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's back up now, with citations. How did I do? Thank you for your help! - Kevin147.9.136.251 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Already reverted. Seriously? What's the problem here? Is there any way to help an author correct their work without just deleting the whole thing? - Kevin 147.9.136.251 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I spent ten years wondering about that beautiful piece of music the farmer watches on television. I finally found out what it was. Is there any way I can share this with other people without having my work deleted seconds later? I sourced a link to the soundtrack which confirms the title of the piece. How was that unacceptable? I'd appreciate some answers. - Kevin 147.9.136.251 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the reverting editor started a discussion at the article's Talk page. Let's take this discussion over there. Doniago (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

civility policy
There is a policy conversation going on at Wikipedia talk:Civility that, given your expressed interest in such matters, you may have an opinion. I've endeavored to have a civility policy conversation there, but humans being what we are, it is challenging for many editors not to go after the behavioral ANI (quickly settled: no behavioral faux pax) I had started that brought the whole topic up, or the content dispute that preceded the behavioral outburst that I have asked about (which I have felt set aside to endeavor to get the civility policy question and behavioral questions dealt with first). Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied there, but have a few additional thoughts- I don't think the ANI case was handled well and was effectively side-lined (not that I've ever seen that before...). I'm not sure whether the comment itself is something I'd consider "incivil" but I certainly don't think it was diplomatic or necessarily constructive. The fact that it was left at your Talk page muddies the waters though, because you have far greater latitude to address the comment in whatever manner you see fit (including simply deleting it) there than you would had it been left elsewhere.
 * Sadly I've come to believe that in many cases Civility is something many admins are willing to talk about but few are willing to get involved with when it becomes a problem. I can't imagine why on Earth I'd feel that way...
 * Don't know whether you're reading WT:V at all these days, but I noticed certain editors who also spoke up at WT:CIVIL still won't let past debates go, and continue to paint them as "the many versus the one" when I think by now it's patently obvious that that wasn't the case.
 * I'm happy to consider offering additional opinions if you'd like them, but I'm not sure what else there is to say at this point. Might be best to just move on. The possibly-incivil editor doesn't dictate policy, so I don't see any reason to change your behavior provided it isn't actually disruptive. Doniago (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I think I have moved on.  I let the "editor behavior" and "civility policy" discussions run their course, which they now have.  It's been a week.  So I recently moved onto the content side of the discussion and have reattempted to invite the subject editor to have civil content discussions on an article Talk page.  I left a summary on my Talk page, with a link to the article page where I've opened up a content discussion.  Thanks for your input!


 * It does appear like civility policy, in practice, is not so clear as one of the five core policies/"pillars" would seem to indicate. I had not known that previously, but do now.  I'll likely use pieces of your approach to try to keep these editors conversing on article Talk pages where, apparently, there is a bit higher standard on civil discourse.  We'll see. N2e (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one "tactic" I've adopted is encouraging editors who don't seem happy with my approach to a problem to discuss it at the article's Talk page rather than my page. I think editors are more inclined towards professional behavior on those pages, and there's also increased visibility if things do go south...and for better or worse, you then have a legitimate argument for not being able to clean up the mess yourself.
 * As a tangent - it's interesting to note how many editors I revert who come to my Talk page to discuss it, but then never follow-up after I reply. I don't know whether that means I'm addressing their concerns to their satisfaction, or just scaring them away. :p
 * I think civility policy is clear enough, though in fairness there are some shades of grey, it's just that a number of editors seem to feel that it's the least of the pillars, which I find regrettable. My disaffection for that philosophy is on par with my feelings towards the view that admins should be allowed to get away with things that other editors would not; I much prefer the view that admins should be held to a higher standard precisely because they're admins.
 * Anyway, glad I was helpful! I'll keep an eye on WT:CIVIL and chime in if I see anything I have a response to. Doniago (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2013 (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) 12:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Cushing
Concerning Peter Cushing There is a local song concerning Peter Cushing and his riding of a bicycle. I was alluding to this in the comment. The Jellybottys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_w45Ad5xZI I hope to fill the comment out to reference this song in the near future. If you think this is still inappropriate please indicate. 176.24.113.243 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, please note that new comments should generally be added at the bottom of Talk pages. Also, while it might be appropriate to mention that there's a song about Cushing, I don't believe it can be used to factually establish his riding of a bicycle. Lastly, I can't check out the link for myself at this time, but you should review WP:YT before using YouTube as a reference. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Doogie Howser, M.D.
Thank you for pointing out the lack of summary in my edit. Balamurali Ambati and Sho Yano are real-life examples of rare individuals who earned a medical degree at a very young age, Ambati at 17 and Yano at 21. I thought these could be useful examples that complement the fiction of Doogie Howser, but perhaps this connection was not clear under a non-descriptive "See also" section. Do you suppose the article might benefit from a mention of these individuals in a sub-section? I learned about Ambati and Yano only because they refer to each other in their respective See also sections. There is also Akrit Jaswal, who but he does not seem to have a medical license yet. Shawnc (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion: If there's reliable sources that have compared the inimitable Dr. Howser to the individuals you mention then I believe it might be worthwhile to put together a sub-section about them. If not, then I think they're probably appropriate for a "See Also" section, but please include some descriptive text indicating why they're being included, as it likely won't be clear to a casual reader if only the links are provided. Thanks for getting in touch, and I hope this makes sense! Doniago (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a few citations regarding those individuals and added them to the article. Thanks! Shawnc (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

DS Gun
There are many different fans who have made working DS flameguns (I used to personally know over a dozen, myself included), with the first being done by Bill Blake in 1977 (http://www.snowcrest.net/fox/loganfan/subpages/bill.htm). There used to be a whole wiki on building them, and sources for plans and parts. Go do a Google search, then go undo your undo. BTW, if you want one, the guy making and selling them gets $900 each, but his design internals are superior. The big problem that all of us who duplicated the originals had was that the original valve was from a butane cigar lighter, weak and subject to a buildup of crud from the carbide. Even updated designs (with felt filters) weren't clean enough for the original valve. The guy making them now as updated the design, enough that I'm thinking of buying one of his (mine are long-since gone, sold to fans). 75.208.94.251 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to say numerous fans have made working DS guns, you need to provide a reliable source that makes that claim. Please note that wikis, including this one, aren't reliable sources...even if the information was stated there we couldn't publish it here. Otherwise, it's original research. Linking to sites that sell them wouldn't prove anything since that wouldn't establish that people have bought them, and I suspect that those sites claiming that people have bought them would be considered troublesome as the information would be originating from a primary source at that point...and one with a vested interest in selling its product. Doniago (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Logan's Run Shooting Script
Uh. . .they made the movie FROM the shooting script. Everything that was in my edit was in the film. To verify this, I even watched it for the 100th or so time before doing the edit (to make sure I wasn't working from memory, a lot of things were shot that didn't get into the final cut). Go back and watch the DVD and you will see everything that I said. If you want to argue finer points, email me (mission.com kw6@x) (put that together, x to m for a valid email address), I'm always happy to talk about LR. 75.208.94.251 (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what this is in reference to. If it's in reference to the plot, then plot summaries are based on what's explicitly shown in the film, not what the creator's intentions were. If it's in regards to how the film differs from the book or such, then we need a secondary source that discusses the difference and establishes that it's considered significant. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Revert
Hi, I reverted your "undo" of my edits to Winzer / Winsor, as the source for my edit was the ODNB. As this is already mentioned as a reference (and is the sole source for the article) this would just be a tautology. Also doing a roll back is overkill - a simple {cn} would be adequate. Rgds, Ephebi (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Really, the article should be updated to include inline citations, and generally articles shouldn't be sourced to only one reference in any case. I've tagged the article noting that inline cites should be used, but as long as there's only one source it's probably not a priority.
 * I only use a CN tag when I'm unable to identify the author of added information, or the information hasn't been added recently. My feeling is that citations should be provided at the time information is added, and to my mind it makes more sense to remove the information promptly and ask the author to re-add it with a reference than it does to simply tag it and hope someone will provide a source in the indefinable future. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagging as {unreferenced} is the approach indicated by WP:NOCITE, not deletion. While I understand your desire for readable, well-sourced pages, removing a genuine edit can come across as careless or lacking WP:AGF, especially when one fails to look at the context of the edit. (If you were to look into Winzer, you will understand that it is challenging to give alternative sources without resorting to long out of print books or OR).  A little more care in drive-by deletions should hopefully reduce the instances of unfortunate editors humbly seeking contrition on this talk page. Best regards, Ephebi (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to your opinion, and you're certainly welome to approach unsourced material in the manner you describe, but you'll find just as many editors believe that editors, especially experienced ones, shouldn't be adding unsourced information to articles to begin with, and policy does not forbid the removal of unsourced material without tagging or even notification. NOCITE says you "can" tag material; it does not expressly require it. In any case, as I stated, I'd rather remove unsourced material and ask the contributing editor to re-add it with a citation then tag it and leave it in the article hoping that an editor will at some point see fit to tag it. There are articles here that have had reams of unsourced material for years precisely because no editor has thus far been invested enough to provide references; I have no interest in doing anything that might contribute to that. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)