User talk:Doniago/Archive 57

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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

First Pubic Hair Shown in Playboy
Actually, the cite came from another wiki article entitled the public wars!

76.112.63.254 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, but you're welcome to take a reliable source from that article and add it to the one you were editing. DonIago (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Duh
Brain was disengaged, thanks for grabbing that :) -- samtar talk or stalk 15:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries; happy to help! DonIago (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Arcology RFC
I'm curious; could you direct me to the RFC regarding the removal of all that cruft from the Arcology article? The IP who did the delete [[here]] mentioned an RFC consensus in their edit summary. While I agree that trimming the section was a good idea (it was excessively large), I couldn't find the actual RFC in question. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IPCV is relevant for discussion purposes, but the actual RfC is here. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Gimubrc (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2016 (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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

New edit not being accepted- ark of covenant
By your own criteria, my addition on a possible source meets your requirements. I am merely showing biblical prophesy leading to the possibility of a new location of the Ark of the covenant. That alone should be enough. All other possible sites mentioned in the wiki artical for the arks resting place are all speculation and conjecture... nothing is verifiable! There are only stories and anecdotes! Yet because some book mentioned something in the distant past it is permitted. Well, the bible was written in the distant past. Could it not have any clues as to what God intended for it? No secondary source is needed because no other locations mentioned can back any statements with any proof either. It is important to let people know that another site (not yet listed) is a plausible resting place of the ark of the covenant. That's it! Then they can do further research if they choose. I mentioned the Wyatt website because information there is factual, and in the public domain and people my choose to study it further based on actual archeological work done at the site. Since no other wiki information already posted actually proves a location, this reference to actual evidence to support the Moriah site as worthy of consideration is actually something that would benefit wikipedians. As I last tried to post it, it is neutral, factual and has no personal opinion. I request someone to edit out my sentences ending with question marks, if that is a remaining issue.

DONIAGO- I am having trouble navigating these talk pages, my own talk page... where is the best place to continue this conversation... do i sign my name "Geojoeman (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Geojoeman" without the quotations ... do I leave a space between the tilde and my username... do caps matter?... what does {ping|username} mean and how/when do I use that? ..do I include the brackets? Is "doniago" your username? It is taking me a lot of time,, despite the "help" available, its all extremely confusing... so many formatting and structural nuances... too much for me!Nothing making sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geojoeman (talk • contribs)


 * The information you added, as worded, appeared to me to be either synthesis or speculative. If a reliable source has not made those claims, then we shouldn't do so either.
 * If you feel the information should be added regardless of my concerns, the best place to discuss it would be at the article's Talk page, where other editors can chime in.
 * My feeling is that content-based discussions are usually best conducted at the Talk page for the article, as then anyone interested in the article's subject matter may see the discussion and offer their thoughts. I usually only discuss conduct related concerns at editors' own Talk pages.
 * Any time you add a comment you can have it automatically signed by adding four tildes (~) to the end of the comment. No need to insert a signature manually.
 * is a way of notifying an editor when you're trying to get their attention. Ping is a template, while the username is, in my case, DonIago, as you surmised. If an editor's already following a conversation, there's usually no need to ping them, but it can be a good way to ensure they're notified. So, to ping, me, you'd type in, just like that. You can read more about how this works at Template:ping if you're curious.
 * Hope this all helps; it definitely takes some time to get the gist of Wikipedia editing! Sorry if I was a little terse above, I have a limited window of time right now. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Consideration (song)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Consideration (song). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Unseen character
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unseen character. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)