User talk:Doniago/Archive 45

Oscar awards question
Hi Doniago,

Allow me to state upfront that I am not familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I am searching around the Wikipedia site to see if there a "referee" or an appeals route to pursue regarding a issue.

I was looking at the list of Mediators and yours was the only introduction that mentioned film and television.

I have had an issue which requires someone with some real experience with the Oscars and the vernacular used by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences during award season. It is a very precise vocabulary. I have had a dialog with a Wikipedia editor who, in my opinion, has no real understanding of what language is approved by the Academy and what language is not approved. He also does not grasp that certain words are neutral and certain other words are considered prejudicial to the Academy at awards time. I'm sure he's a very fine man but this requires someone with knowledge of this particular terrain.

Before I lay out the threads of our communication I thought I should ask you if this is anything you have a feel for and would be interested in. I realize that everyone has their own fields of interest and other areas which they don't feel suited to address.

Please let me know your thoughts and if I am taking the correct step within the Wikipedia universe..

Respectfully, D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:F07B:99DE:3389:2F3C (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm not really an expert on the Academy Awards, though I might be able to offer an opinion if I could review the specific situation. That said, in general when there are questions about wording it's best to hew closely to what reliable sources have to say on the matter, and we should specifically be careful to avoid original research.
 * Rather than speaking with me directly about this, I might recommend raising the matter at WT:FILM, where a variety of editors interested in such matters may be well-positioned to offer advice. I would recommend linking to the specific article/conversation; if you don't you'll likely be asked for it in any case.
 * Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. All of your advice is informative. Allow me to lean on your guidance one more time. I brought my issue to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and after laying out the situation there was only one editor who came forward to address it. I presented "reliable sources". The editor thought that certain phrases in the related articles were interchangeable and closed down the discussion.

Since I have gone this route, is there an avenue of appeal where I might lay the matter before other editors who may have more of a working knowledge of the subject? Would this be the route WT:FILM you suggested above? I want to be respectful of your processes but it is a bit of a maze for a Wikipedia layman such as myself. I don't know which forum is supposed to have a final word on matters.

Respectfully, D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:EC22:747C:5422:1AFB (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you're an IP, I'm having trouble locating the specific conversation at BLPN; if you can provide a direct link, I'd be curious to peruse it. That said, if this is a film-related article then WT:FILM wouldn't be a bad place to start. If you have no luck there (and I'd recommend mentioning that you already went to BLPN and providing a link to the conversation), you may want to consider other forms of dispute resolution. I think that's about the best I can do. DonIago (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide the link but the item was closed and a few days afterward was removed from the Contents. I did, however, keep the entire dialog and can reprint it here if you'd like. If there is a way for me to retrieve the link, such as an Archives, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:41F9:B1C9:A5FE:B6BE (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are archives. There's a searchbox (and an actual link to the archives) on the right side of the BLPN page, just a little bit down, above the section for starting a new request. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're a genius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive226#Dennis_Spiegel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:41F9:B1C9:A5FE:B6BE (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, I try. In any case, a third editor did chime in at the end of that conversation. My advice would be to let it rest...spend enough time here and you'll find that some arguments just aren't worth the effort to fight. But again, you can ask at WT:FILM or look at other forms of dispute resolution (linked above). Either way be sure to provide the link you just sent me, because people will want to see that discussion. DonIago (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Doniago. Truly appreciate your sage advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:41F9:B1C9:A5FE:B6BE (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

response to your edit of Society for Creative Anachronism
Here is the cite from the SCA page regarding the closure of the chirurgeonate http://socsen.sca.org/closure-of-the-office-of-the-chirurgeonate-august-10-2015/

As far as the other items goes, not every line needs a cite. Since I was the High Constable of the West on two occasions, I know what I am talking about.

This constant undoing of peoples work by others who do not know anything about the subject matter is why many are reluctant to assist wikipedia, it makes it user unfriendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wulfysanjose (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that the removal of material can be frustrating, but Wikipedia has a verifiability policy for good reason, and if being asked for a reference is enough to drive one away from contributing, they might be best off directing their energies elsewhere in any case. If information cannot be traced to a reliable source (and Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources) then it should not be added. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that you provided a source here, I'm not sure why you couldn't just add it to the article. In any case, the source doesn't say anything about constables, so I've removed that part of your edit. Please provide a reliable source for that information if you would like it included. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Message
Hello Doniago watch this video and then please reply:www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aQuznMoJN8 --182.189.69.184 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * May I ask what this is in regards to? DonIago (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate
Was my edit really that horrible? I only added a few words to clarify some disambiguous statements - and couldn't see anywhere on that page that said "this plot summary is too long".Numen (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a horrible edit, but as discussed at WP:FILMPLOT, film plot summaries should generally be within 400-700 words, and your edit expanded the summary beyond that range. If you feel that your edit should be retained in spite of the fact that it violates that guideline, you are welcome to raise the matter at the article's Talk page. My suggestion would be that you find ways to incorporate your edits while keeping the plot summary under 700 words. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Some encouragement
Hi. FWIW I was going to support you on the basis of your work at WP:3O which I remember well. I was going to cite this one as an example of your policy-based argumentation and patience with tendentious editors. You made mistakes at the RFA, but you didn't demonstrate any character flaw, and your answers to the questions were good. Well done for seeing where it was headed and minimising the drama. I hope to support a future RFA of yours. Best wishes, --Stfg (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (smiles) Thank you very much for your kind words. DonIago (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Adminship
Hey I have seen you around a bit and was surprised you weren't an administrator. Would you mind if I nominated you for the bit? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (boggles) Wow, first of all, let me say that I'm flattered that you think my being an admin would be an asset to the project. I have to admit (geeze, I almost typoed that as "admin") that I'm not entirely sure what I could bring to the project as an admin that I can't already contribute without having the bit, but then, I tend to believe that sometimes the people best able to handle additional power, as it were, are the ones who aren't specifically looking for it.
 * I admit I have some butterflies in my stomach at the notion (I'm more than a little worried about the potential for drama at RfA, one of the principal reasons that I doubt I'd ever self-nominate), but if, even after reading this, you feel I could benefit the project as an admin and are willing to set up the nomination, I'm willing to accept it! Thanks again for asking the question! DonIago (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think given your diligence for insisting on sound sourcings for articles and your knowledge of the various guidelines would certainly stand you in good stead. I can't think of any incident that would cause me to have reservations about you being handed adminstrative powers. If this nomination goes ahead let me know and I will happily support it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Betty! DonIago (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have created the page at Requests for adminship/Doniago. Once you accept and answer the questions, you are good to go. Good luck! ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 15:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the hat has been tossed into the ring. However this turns out, thanks for your faith in me and your rather lovely nomination! DonIago (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know how this RfA will go but if for some reason you don't succeed and decide to take another run at it, I think you would benefit from taking a few days (weeks, months) to think about the process before launching an RfA. You can't anticipate every objection or question that will arise but some of them are fairly predictable and every candidate could use having some preparation before entering the fray. Liz  Read! Talk! 00:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. DonIago (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well it looks like you are getting some opposition because you havent written any articles from scratch. If you want, I can give you some information on articles to create. It might not sway the opposition but it couldn't hurt, I guess. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 00:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given current circumstances, it's probably best if I just say thank you. DonIago (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who'd like to discuss any aspect of the RfA process with me in either general or specific terms is welcome to email me. Otherwise, until my RfA is concluded I've been given the distinct impression that the less I speak of it here the better for everyone concerned. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would hope anyone who's spent any time working with me here would realize that my pointing out the RfA to a handful of editors I've worked with frequently was never intended as canvassing. It's evidently had quite the chilling effect on my RfA nevertheless. I considered saying something there, but am uncertain that that would be productive, and would welcome advice as far as that goes. I am, for instance, uncertain whether it might be best to simply withdraw the nomination at this time given that it (at least right now) appears to be under a cloud. DonIago (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doniago, often discussions relating to your ongoing RFA will occur at your talk page. I think you would be careful so as not to direct any individuals who are not already involved in your RFA to the section, but other than that it's a common practice to discuss things here as well as at the RFA talk page page / discussion section. As Kurtis said, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt on the canvassing issue, but I believe some of the opposes stem from the fact that even if it wasn't your intention, there's an argument you should have been self aware of the situation. For example, WP:RFAADVICE, one the of expected reading materials for those going to RFA, talks about canvassing as a 'specific point'. Based upon my experience at RFA, withdrawing would demonstrate that you're aware of the situation, you assess the likely outcome of your RFA, and acknowledge the feedback. In a year or so, if you're still interested in the tools and you followed some of the advice, then I think a successful RFA wouldn't be unrealistic. Naturally this is all advice and please proceed as your heart instructs you to do. Mkdw talk 12:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful words Mkdw; they are greatly appreciated.
 * I acknowledge that letting a handful of other editors know about my RfA was a misstep, and if I was aware any options for remediating the situation I would be undertaking them. Unfortunately simply deleting my remarks obviously won't change anything, and might in fact just exacerbate the problem. My best consolation is that the only editor harmed through my error is myself.
 * I will take your feedback under advisement, and you have my deepest gratitude for reaching out to speak with me directly on this matter. DonIago (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn
In light of how matters were progressing at the RfA, I've opted to withdraw my nomination. I'm not really sure who actively reads my Talk page, but thanks to everyone who supported me, most especially to for the gracious and unexpected nomination, and to  everyone who gave my RfA their time and consideration. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. I still think youd be a great admin. RfA sucks. I think if you address some of the oppositions concerns such as article creation and AfD participation, I'd be willing to renominate in seven months or so. Of course, given the amount of opposition you received (especially the dumb canvassing accusation), I'd understand if you wouldn't want to go through the process again. Best of luck, and don't let the RfA tear you apart. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 15:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh god, that movie. :p Thanks for your continuing faith in my ability to work as an admin if the opportunity were to present itself. You know...the thing about article creation is that I've always considered myself better at editing than at writing; I understand the principles involved in constructing an article, I just have little interest in undertaking the process (assuming I could even come up with a subject I felt merited one at this point, which is somewhat dubious). As for AfDs...I dunno, I'll have to re-read the RfA (when I've regained some intestinal fortitude), but it really just never crossed my mind to be more actively involved with them. If I had become an admin, that certainly wasn't an area I was planning to dive into anytime soon, and I'm a little baffled as to why such emphasis was placed upon them.
 * I appreciate your interest in renominating me in the future, and would be open to having that conversation in time, but right now my feeling is that I wouldn't accept a nomination unless it originated from at least two editors, ideally ones who were aware of my work in different capacities.
 * Anyway, the blunt truth is that for most of the things I've most actively enjoyed doing here, I don't need the additional buttons in any case.
 * Thanks for calling the canvassing accusation "dumb", I got a small laugh out of that.
 * I need a little time to lick my wounds, but I suspect it will be business as usual after that. Thanks again for all of your kind words throughout this experience. DonIago (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a feeling I'd be leading the "Oppose" brigade, but from my point of view it's nothing personal and is just done out of concern to make sure we have the best possible administrator team. I think the most effective example I can give is what I did with this edit which an IP made on Oxford Street (which is a good article nominee and hence should be very well sourced throughout anyway). Okay, what I did was a bit of a ballache compared to "rv, unsourced" but ultimately I think the article is better for it. And that's really what matters, isn't it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't feel you led any brigade (you didn't even mention what I think was ultimately my downfall, the canvassing issue). I'm well aware that I occasionally have some temper issues, and in the situation you cited I probably would have been better off taking some time away from it or asking for additional assistance. Regarding my not speaking at the ANI though, I had gone out of town for the weekend and had minimal internet access at the time (I think my contributions for that period would support that). To be fair though, the way the ANI progressed I'm not sure that I would have said anything either...I mean, it was kind of 'there and gone again', and what was there for me to say (he asked non-rhetorically)?
 * With regards to the RfA, I'm much more frustrated by my own misstep and by feelings that a number of the voters didn't, in my estimation, assume much if any good faith with regards to said misstep. In retrospect I wish there'd been a way for the RfA system to say "You've notified other people about this RfA, which is likely to be seen as canvassing...are you sure you want to proceed?" It just seems...regrettable...that because of that one error the entire process fell apart (I'm not saying my RfA would have succeeded otherwise by any means, but I think we can agree it was a pivotal issue). I honestly don't know how I'd feel if it was me seeing someone else having done what I did...I'd like to think I would have asked the person what their intentions had been though, rather than just taking it as a deliberate attempt to swing the vote.
 * I think it's unfortunate both that once I'd approached the closest thing I have here to friends about the RfA there was no possible way to undo the damage, and that I'll never know how things might have turned out if that hadn't happened, because I'm genuinely curious about that.
 * I would have approached you about this in any case...could I ask how you feel about my response to your question there?
 * Anyway, thanks for getting in touch with me...I do appreciate it. And maybe I don't have the temperament to be an admin...maybe I never will...but FWIW it's something I am aware of and do try to moderate (obviously not always with great success). DonIago (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Some blunt advice: You need to stop whining about the canvassing issue. Despite what your nominator is telling you, you did engage in votestacking, and the community's reaction should have shown you this action was not tolerable. You keep acknowledging your misstep while suggesting the community shouldn't have reacted to it, which is just silly. Townlake (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't like my whining you don't have to read my Talk page. I haven't denied that I unintentionally may have caused votestacking to occur, I only am asserting that it was unintentional and unfortunate for all concerned. And my only issue with the community is with those among it who jumped to the assumption that it couldn't have been anything other than an intentional attempt to sway the vote. I would point such members of the community to WP:AGF. Good Day. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good day to you as well. Townlake (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doniago. I was sorry to hear about the way the RfA thing went. I realize that the opinion of an inexperienced editor (which is what I am) does not carry as much weight as that of an experienced one; but for what it's worth, I think the "canvassing" thing is ridiculous. I stumbled onto the "offending" message to TransporterMan (I happened to have written him something just above your message), and the idea that it could even remotely be considered "canvassing" never even crossed my mind. I saw it simply as one editor sharing some good news with another editor, and nothing more. Based on the (admittedly limited) contacts I've had with you in the past, I think you would have made a great administrator. (And I'm sure that, someday, you will be one.) Richard27182 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words and your faith in me. I greatly appreciate it, and hope I never give you a reason to second-guess it.
 * You pretty much nailed my intentions on the head, and I don't wish to repeat myself, so I'll just quickly say that I concede that my actions might have biased the vote (though I'm skeptical as to whether any impact would have ultimately been statistically significant), and that they were a bit misguided (though if there's a perfect admin out there, I have yet to meet them). I have nothing but respect for the admins who were troubled by the potential problem; my only difficulties are with the ones who assumed the canvassing must have been carried out with intentional malice, especially given what I would imagine is a lack of any supporting evidence. DonIago (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

RE: Don't Fear the. reaper
That's too bad, because that was the only source I found >. Since you like to follow Wikipedia's rules, then why don't you go on google and search for a reliable source that proves that "The Parent Rap" should be mentioned in (Don't Fear) The Reaper. Goodbye. Mr. Slinks ( talk ) 19:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. I apologize for my behavior. Mr. Slinks  ( talk ) 19:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to turn something up this weekend, but honestly my feeling is that it's probably not something that anyone particularly noted. I imagine that probably isn't what you're hoping to hear, and I do apologize for that; I know it sucks when you'd like something added to an article but it gets hung up on sourcing. You may want to ask at the article's Talk page as well; that way other editors may find something we would miss. Thank you for the apology; muchly appreciated! DonIago (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem sir. Have a nice day. Mr. Slinks  ( talk ) 20:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there...I did try to dig up an independent reliable source making the connection between the song and the episode in a manner that would establish that this incidence was considered significant, but was regrettably unable to find one. If you're able to succeed where I failed, that would be awesome. Failing that though, I think we're left with the conclusion that this is ultimately a trivial reference that is probably best left not included. Sorry I'm not able to be more helpful, and thank you again for the apology. Hope you had a great weekend! DonIago (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 00:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Willy Wonka
The film was listed as a comedy on other sites so I put it on the page sorry if this was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.114.128 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to re-add it; just make sure to include a citation to a reliable source and you'll be fine. Happy to help out if I can. DonIago (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Jurassic Bark
Hi they ! Hope you're well :) I've just been dealing with an email over at OTRS regarding Jurassic Bark and it's season/episode numbers. I've popped some information I've personally found on IMDB (which I verified with other sources because I don't always trust IMDB) into the article. I've noticed you've reverted any changes referring to S05EP02. Now, I don't normally get involved in Futurama or TV series articles, so I may be missing a trick! Anything I should know? my edit to the article. Ciao Samuel Tarling (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The episodes are classified by production order, not airing order, per the FAQ at Talk:List of Futurama episodes. Hope this helps. The infoboxes used at the episode articles are accurate, and I've been trying to lower the instances of editing by inserting notes asking editors to check the infobox listings, with regrettably limited success. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Apologies for the disruption I may have caused. Happy editing! :) Samuel Tarling (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for getting in touch! DonIago (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Coming from Editor assistance/Requests, I got pulled in and I've tweaked the lede and put a note on the talk page which will, hopefully, prevent any further confusion about this. Don, my friend, did you really send the good reverend a nasty? BTW, Don, I've sent you email on an unrelated matter. Best regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Without checking, it's certainly possible...as noted I've been inserting notes on pages where this info was specifically being edited asking folks to refer to the infobox before making changes. Hard to assume the edits are anything other than intentional at that point, though I admit I may have been fighting this for long enough that I don't AGF as much as I should on it. I've always figured when you're changing info for which there is a note though, you should be decidedly more careful than under ordinary circumstances. DonIago (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don, I went back a few versions on Bark to look and I'm not sure what note you mean unless you mean the notes, but even then I think it's not clear what you're trying to say: I'm not sure what reviewing the infobox is supposed to reveal. Or maybe I'm just missing the point or missing the real note. Best regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was the note I meant. The infobox when set-up correctly (which is how it's been at the time I've added the note) includes a production order list of the episodes for each season, which should, obviously, correspond to the rest of the information listed at the article. My apologies if the note was ambiguous, but for myself, I'd tend to ask about an ambiguous note rather than disregarding it, and thus far no editors have come forward with better wording; admittedly I didn't go around asking because these issues seemed pretty isolated in scope in the larger scale of WP issues. DonIago (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt, and me too, but we're both experienced users committed to working things out on the talk page. Are the forces you've been fighting on this multiple individuals, a persistent one or two editors, puppets, or a concerted third party effort? Also, do you have a RS for the production seasons? So far I'm striking out on finding one. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say at least 90% of the time they're IP editors. I don't recall any instances of engaging in conversation on the topic and running into issues (probably would have referred them to the link I provided above and taken it from there). I've been using List of Futurama episodes or the infobox lists themselves (one and the same?) for that info. But....discounting Wikis and such...ergh, I'd have to recommend asking at an appropriate Talk page. Sorry, I'm getting hammered by non-wiki matters right now and couldn't find anything on a cursory search. I dunno, maybe an RfC is called for? DonIago (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mistake
Hello. I got your message on my talk page about removing Kyle Jean-Baptiste from the List of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni. It looks like you've made a mistake, as most of the alumni on that page don't have a reference. Will those be removed as well? --Cagepanes (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They would be eligible for removal, especially given that the article's been tagged long-term. If you want to remove them I won't contest it. DonIago (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Interesting that you only did one though instead of the other hundred. --Cagepanes (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done many over time, but as yours was just added, I figured you were well-positioned to provide a source. Sourcing the others would be preferable to deletion, but I'm willing to see it go either way. DonIago (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As it doesn't seem you're willing to work on the article, the unsourced people have been removed. --Cagepanes (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okie-doke. DonIago (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maurice Cloud
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maurice Cloud. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)