User talk:Doniago/Archive 94

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) 23:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

CANDYMAN
I guess I'll have to provide an edited version of the CANDYMAN: FAREWELL TO THE FLESH summary because a lot of that detail is better coherent to understand the movie and I frankly don't like the plot summary we have currently as some things are mis-wrote or out of order or don't include important characters at all like the detectives. I feared there might have been an issue and the article was pushing a bit of detail, but I figured it could have gotten a pass since it wasn't OVERLY long. I am quite disappointed. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe it's not possible to produce a reasonable plot summary for the film that's also under 700 words as described at WP:FILMPLOT, you're welcome to raise the question at the article's Talk page, but I don't think you're likely to have much luck with convincing editors that a summary of over 1K words (at the time I reverted) is necessary. DonIago (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. I'm gonna make this work somehow. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me know if there's anything I can do to help! DonIago (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I just re-did the plot summary and made it shorter. It might still be a tad bit lengthy but not as much as before as should be alright. Go over it and let me know how it is. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, did you read the changes I did? I'd like your feedback. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay; I've been out of town for the last few days. I'm seeing that the current summary is 864 words. Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries generally shouldn't exceed 700 words. I think you need to go through it and find ways to bring the word count further down. Please let me know if you'd like me to take my own shot at doing so. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, so there's 164 words I have to cut out? Jesus...I'll give it another crack and hopefully I can get to at least closer to 700. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I shortened it as best I could. Not sure how much to take out without removing significant plot points that help explain other things. This is tricky. I probably got it down to like 830 at the most. I guess you'll have to take a crack at this. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's getting there! Now at 808. Would you like to take another shot at it, or would you like me to go through it? Also, if it would help, there's a Wikipedia tool for quickly getting plot summary word counts that you can access here. DonIago (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, so it's lower than I thought it was. That's good I suppose. I'll take another crack at it. I have to go through this carefully now because it looks like some plot points are going to HAVE to be sacrificed here. I don't want it to really look like how it was before I changed it because a lot of details just felt lacking and abrupt. That was the whole point of me filling in those empty gaps and tweaking so the plot felt more coherent for people wanting to know the plot. Gee, 808? I wish the plot summary limit was 800 instead. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to raise the question at WT:FILM, but I think 700 is a pretty well-established guideline that most film article editors support at this point (indeed, some feel that's too liberal), so it would probably be an uphill battle to raise it. If you don't want to try to change the overall guideline, you can ask the question at the article's Talk page, but I'd suggest taking another shot at it yourself (and letting me do a look-over) to see whether we can find something we can live with first. Sorry if it feels overly-restrictive...I know there've been times when I was making a real effort to pare down a summary and even after doing everything I could, I couldn't get it down to 700 (or reasonably close to 700), and had to tag the article in the hopes that other editors would pick it up (or that I'd get back to it another time) and move on. Trimming plot summaries just isn't something that's worth spending too much time on without handing it off to others, in my opinion...but that does open the possibility that another editor will make a trim you wouldn't be comfortable with. I hope this is helpful, and I'm glad we're able to work together on this. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I shortened it down some more as much as I could get it. I am DONE with this. I know it's not at the limit so let me know where it's at. You can take a crack at it this time if you see fit. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll see what I can do with it. Thanks for your work on this, I know trimming summaries is a bit of a PITA. DonIago (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How many words did I get it down to? - DevonteHuntley (talk) 21:52 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your last edit had brought it down to 744; I made further edits and brought it down to 689. DonIago (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! You did it! Congrats and you made word choices I didn't even think to make that I feel stupid for overlooking. That tends to happen. Since we managed to get it 11 words under 700, I restored a few more to get it to 699 so we're still in the clear. Thanks for your help! - DevonteHuntley (talk) 02:28 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is kind of why I think it's best not to spend too much time working on a plot summary singlehandedly...because other editors may think of things you didn't, though the downside is they may cut things that you wouldn't want cut. Glad we could come up with something that works for you and gets the word count under 700! DonIago (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
Sorry for the unprofessionalism but I don’t know the norms of editing in Wikipedia. I do the best I can to add information that I can add citations too or to correct the mistakes of others. I have tried explaining to user 24.240.132.234 why his edits are disruptive but he nevertheless persists with them. I don’t know how to report him so I was hoping you could help me. If you need help finding his edits, one of them is on the page Joe Bell (film). He usually edits incorrect information relating to numbers, whether it be the year the movie was released or the number of singles relating to music. The biggest page he tried to edit was Casablanca, and while that was caught, others were not and I had to edit them back correctly myself. I would appreciate if someone more professional helped me with this matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.116.211 (talk • contribs)
 * I can't look just this moment, but I'll try to give it a look in the next few hours. DonIago (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So if you look at their editing history, they've barely edited at all, only once in August, and their edit to Joe Bell was subsquently fixed. Typically when it's an IP editor, they need to be editing rather more frequently than this editor appears to be doing for it to be considered problematic. I'm happy to talk about this more if you'd like though! DonIago (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to review this, but I think you linked the wrong page or looked at the wrong one. The page you linked was the revisions to the users page, and the edit in august was someone telling them not to put false information on the site. If you look at their contributions, they’ve falsely edited information onto numerous pages 9 times in the past week, with their most recent false edits being 3 from yesterday. If you can’t do anything about it I understand, I’m just not that familiar with reporting someone on this site so if there really is nothing that can be done, I’ll just try to revert their false edits when I can. Thank you once again for taking time to review this. | This is a link to their contributions. (I tried linking it but I don’t know if it directly links to their page, sorry if it doesn’t). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.116.211 (talk • contribs)
 * For future reference, please do sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) to the end of them. Thanks!!!
 * Also, this will teach me to try looking into such things after several hours of hiking; you're quite right that I looked at and then linked you to the wrong page. Sorry about that! After looking into their actual contributions I did see a number of edits, though it looks as though they've all been reverted at this point. I did leave them another warning telling them to stop making erroneous edits or risk being blocked. Hopefully that will do the trick. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and please let me know if you see them continuing to make poor edits. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry for the late reply. I thought that the problem was fully fixed but user 24.240.132.23 is once again continuously editing false information regardless of being warned. They changed information on the page The Patriot (1998), twice, and even after it was reverted both times, they continued to change it. They were told that what they were doing was disruptive but nevertheless they continued. They’ve been warned countless times and are showing no signs of stopping, understanding that they are being disruptive, and actually wanting to contribute valuable information on this site. They for some reason like to reference IMDb as they’re source, but even IMDb contradicts what they’re trying to add. At this point I think they are beyond being warned, as they were warned two more times after their final warning, so I ask is it possible to put restrictions on them or potentially block them from further edits. I truly think it’s been happening for far too long. Thank you for your time once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.116.211 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi...I don't think there's much I can do about this. The IP appears to have last edited on August 23, their edits were reverted, and they've been warned at their Talk page. Prior to that I'd warned them on August 11. If you're hoping for a block or such, it's likely going to take a couple of more edits to establish that they're being actively disruptive, as admins tend to try to avoid blocking IPs unless they're being actively disruptive, which means more than an edit or two spaced almost two weeks apart (though if all they do is edit disruptively then that can get them blocked eventually). If you see them make a current (even three days ago wouldn't count) problematic edit and let me know, I can see if I can escalate the matter, but as I said, in this case they made edits that got reverted and they got warned to stop doing so, so...they're on notice. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope I’m not too late but he vandalized Big Fish recently. He continues to put incorrect information about the release date of films and even after being warned countless times and threatened with multiple blocks, he persists. Is there anything that can be done now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.116.211 (talk • contribs)
 * Based on the fact that they hadn't edited in ove two weeks, I gave them a final warning. If they make disruptive edits again anytime soon, I'd be willing to report them to the admins, or you can at WP:ARV. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t know where you got that two weeks from cause they edited yesterday. | This is a link to their contributions. Like I said, they need to be blocked or else this will continue. They’ve been warned since February and no repercussions have occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.116.211 (talk • contribs)
 * You malformatted that; don't add pipes at the end of URLs (but do add them if using a Wikilink), and please do sign your messages by adding four tildes (~) at the end. In any case, I'm seeing no edits from them between August 23 and September 6, which is two weeks without editing. Vandalism repots that don't reflect an active pattern (i.e. daily or more frequent) are likely to be ignored unless a long-term pattern can be established, and in my estimation (since you're essentially asked me to handle this), we don't have that quite yet, though we're getting close, especially now that we have an unambiguous final warning. In any event, they're not editing enough to present a "clear and present danger"; reverting a handful of edits or less is easily accomplished. You are, of course, welcome to report them yourself if you wish to do so! Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * They have added misinformation once again on the ghost hunters Wikipedia page. Sorry if the link is weird, I will look into adding links and signing my messages more. Since they’ve already been warned a final time, will anything be done? 97.80.116.211
 * Can you please explain how this edit is problematic? If anything it seems to be correcting a problem. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It contradicts information previously stated on the page and gives false information. False information is problematic is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.116.211 (talk • contribs)
 * Again, please sign your responses by adding four tildes (~) at the end of them.
 * I don't see that edit contradicting anything. In fact, it appears to be correcting headers that were improperly changed by a previous editor to be inconsistent with the rest of the article. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I reported the IP at WP:AIV after they made a blatantly incorrect change to the release year for Jason X after I issued a final warning previously. The IP has consequently been blocked for a month. Hopefully that will address the issue. If not, while they should still receive at least one warning before being blocked again (blocks aren't punitive, but are intended to prevent disruption to Wikipedia), it would be easier to block them again going forward as they will have established a pattern. DonIago (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m glad this was finally able to be sorted out. Thank you for your help throughout this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.116.211 (talk • contribs)

Cold Front
I restored an edit you reverted in the Star Trek Enterprise Cold Front article. I attempted to explain my reasoning but as I did the flaws in my own edit became increasingly apparent (it made sense in my head!) so I've removed the weak part of the edit that was most likely the problem. Please see Talk:Cold_Front_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise) and let me know if there is more I need to fix or if the smaller delete is enough. -- 109.78.211.177 (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can do; thanks for reaching out to me! DonIago (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

For your enjoyment
Hi again D. Since you appreciate Roald Dahl I though you should have a look at this box set from the Folio Society. I know they are pricey but the quality is first rate and the cost to look at them is like the pay here at the 'pedia :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But...but...how can they include Charlie and the Chocolate Factory but not Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator??? DonIago (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it is only set one so fingers crossed for its inclusion is a future box set :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a bit too rich for my blood (and my reading backlog is terrible these days), but if you end up purchasing them, I hope you enjoy! My grandmother read a few of Dahl's books to me when I was young, and I must have read others on my own. I don't think I ever got past the first few chapters of James and the Giant Peach; not sure why. The Twits is...I dunno, parts were funny but they were such terrible people that I don't remember deriving any pleasure from it, though I may have enjoyed simply spending time with my grandmother reading to me.
 * My absolute favorite book as a child, though, was The Little Train by Graham Greene. My brother bought me a copy a few years ago as a birthday present, which I thought was very kind of him. I can't read it without tearing up due to the memories it invokes though. DonIago (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to get them but I may wait to see if FS has them in one of their sales that they have from time to time. Thanks for sharing your thoughts of those books. The one I read many times as a child is The Shy Stegosaurus of Cricket Creek. Now its been close to fifty years since I last read it but I do have it in a box somewhere so I may have to dig it out to see what memories it hold. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever read that one. I do remember a dinosaur book I was fond of as a child, though sadly I don't recall the name of it. The other one I did remember and re-acquired a few years ago was Pancakes for Breakfast. DonIago (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks fun. The older I get the things "appealing to the very young" become more important and worthwhile, Thanks for letting me know about it. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Do you think it's just the nostalgia factor, or is there more going on? I know I've friended people from high school on Facebook, even though we don't especially talk any more now than we did at the time, so really, why did I bother beyond simple curiosity? DonIago (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. That is worth pondering. For me nostalgia is a powerful thing. I was nostalgic about kindergarten by the time I hit the fourth grade so I'm not an objective voice in the discussion :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (laughs) IIRC when I was in third or fourth grade I was part of a photoessay for the local paper (they rotated among the various schools each week), and the question was, "Do you wish you were older or younger?" and I replied to the effect: "I wish I was younger because then I'd sit in the stroller and wouldn't have to walk on my tired old feet", which my parents thought was a riot.:)
 * Your comment above about how you hadn't read your favorite book in over fifty years does make me wonder how old you are (you're older than I am), but I'm far too much of a gentleman to ask someone their age. ;) DonIago (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a marvelous observation especially for one so young. Prescient as well. My legs and back are so achy on some days that the stroller would be a great way to get around. As to my age - well I feel like I'm at the pantaloon stage and second childishness ain't that far away :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish I could make a drinking game out of how many times my legs crack during the day. :p Between the pandemic and just general concerns about my health, I'm proud of myself for having started hiking fairly regularly on weekends, though sadly I did a better job of it last year than I have this year. In any event, I never would have guessed that you're...er...so seasoned, but I may be biased because these days I'm used to whomever I talk with being younger than I am. It isn't depressing...usually. :p DonIago (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You got that right :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:13, 27 September 2021 (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) 23:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to tighten up the plot
Which you're more than welcome to do of course. See Once Upon a Time in America. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello D. I hope you are well. Thanks for the revert of the redirect. I was about to make the same edit and was typing a long winded edit summary that included mentioning that the list was nothing like a TV Tropes page - for one thing it was well sourced :-) I caught the removal here so I think we are back to where we were. I am interested to see the first ep of Foundation (TV series) tomorrow. It is one of the earliest trilogies I read as a youngster so I'm wondering how they will present it. It does have a good cast which gives me hope. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Marnette, long time no chat! It's funny, I was looking at my watchlist and saw an edit to your Talk page and actively thought, "Haven't interacted with them in awhile!", but I also don't really know how to do small-talk here, and I guess while there are editors I interact with a fair amount, usually it's all project-related talk (FWIW I'm always happy to make friends, it's just not usually what I'm thinking about when I'm here).
 * I've been doing pretty well, all things considered. A lot better than I could be doing for reasons I don't especially want to go into "in public", heh.
 * I wouldn't even necessarily be opposed to the redirect, if there's a consensus for it, but since the editor was essentially soft-deleting the article, and it has tons of sources right now...yeah, I think that shouldn't be done unilaterally.
 * I can't say I know much of anything about Foundation. Most of my TV currently is Frasier, What If... (already seen the other Disney series) and Agents of SHIELD. I hope you enjoy the show!
 * I hope that you've been well as well, and thanks for dropping me a message! DonIago (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome :-) I try to not intrude into other editors lives too much - sometimes I even succeed. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work that people like you do around here AND I'm always glad to see your name on my watchlist. I'm re-watching Agents of Shield as well. I enjoy all of it but I think season three is especially well done. They weave the various story lines together really well and they made me get all emotional more than once - especially with Bobby and Hunter's farewell episode. Best wishes to ya on wikiP and even more so off. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I wouldn't mind you intruding into my life given that I've found most if not all of our interactions pretty pleasant to date. :) (laughs) You did a really good job of coming this close to giving me spoilers without going too far with it, as I'm watching S3 for my first time right now. I just found out who Lash is. Best wishes to you too! DonIago (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the spoiler D. One very nice thing from when I watched the series originally no commercials :-) Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm watching it on Blu ray myself. :) You have a good weekend too; it's been nice chatting with you! DonIago (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Finished S3 of AoS! I'm curious as to whether Bobby and Hunter might show up again at some point in the future...I rather hope they will. As for the rest of it...I'm fairly unhappy with the apparent fates of at least two characters, one of which appears irrevocable, but we'll see. John Hannah was a great surprise though I kind of wish he'd been allowed to cut a little more loose. :) I do feel as though the ambush in the next-to-last episode was something that shouldn't necessarily have been able to happen, but oh well. Overall it held together pretty well! DonIago (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Das Boot movie
Hi Doniago. You reverted my changes regarding Das Boot movie's character of Uwe Ochsenknecht recently. Here are my points: 1. As you know, the movie is based on the book written by Buchheim. All major characters of the movie have the same name from the book. So I disagree with you saying the page is about only the movie and not the book. In my opinion, there is a strong connection between those. I say again, there is no "Lamprecht" as a character in the book. The Bootsmann is named Behrmann in the book. 2. There is nowhere (at my knowledge) in the movie that the Bootsmann is called "Lamprecht" or it is mentionned somewhere. At approx. 75 of 209 minutes of the movie, the 1st WO came out of the toilet asking to the Bootsmann where is the Medic. The 1st WO calls him "Nummer Eins" (which means Number One). So, tell me where the name of "Lamprecht" is mentioned in the movie. 3. The reference from RTL is a wrong (mistaken). In my opinion, the book is a much better source than a news from RTL. 4. I think I know where come from the mistake: the actor playing the Captain of the Weser in the movie, is named Günter Lamprecht. Thanks for your collaboration. ROWPU (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on this, and I'm not in a position to rewatch the movie to weigh in, but your changes appeared to be based largely on the premise that the movie would mirror the book, which isn't necessarily a safe assumption. I recommend raising the question at the article's Talk page, where other editors can weigh in. Have you approached the editor who made the changes to begin with? If not, I would recommend reaching out to them or tagging them in your message. Again, you may well be right in everything you're saying, but it shouldn't be a unilateral change based solely on "this is what the book says" at this point. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

A League of Their Own
Doniago,

You recently undid a recent edit of mine regarding the ending of the World Series in A League of Their Own. First of all, thanks for reaching out to me after the edit. I've been edited many times but nobody had the decency to contact me directly afterwards.

I read the wikipedia guidelines on plot summary you sent me and I have no interest in contributing to going over the word limit. But I do believe that the ambiguous ending to the film is worthy of discussion somewhere on the page. Cast members and fans are still arguing about it all these years later. Do you think I should add an ambiguous ending section to the page? Any ideas?

Tiban250Tiban250 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there Tiban, thanks for reaching out to me with your question.
 * It might be worth raising the question at the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in as well. You're welcome to do so whether or not you like my two cents, which are as follows...
 * I saw that you provided a single source for the information you were adding. Based on your above claim that cast members and fans are still arguing about it, can you provide additional, relatively contemporary sources? If we just have one source claiming that fans argue about it, I'm not sure it merits inclusion. If we have multiple sources that establish that even the cast still debates it, we have a better argument for it being worthy of inclusion.
 * Again, thanks for reaching out, and I hope my answer is helpful...again, I encourage you to ask at the article's Talk page if you feel opinions from other editors would be useful as well. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Tlalli&#32; on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Great Canadian Maple Syrup Heist
Thank you for your message, Doniago. Will you also be removing the other four uncited entries from the same section? 220.235.85.159 (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed items that I felt failed WP:IPCV, as the article itself has been tagged since last October. No reason you couldn't have done so yourself, FWIW. The remaining item mentions that the heist is the subject of a documentary, which I think is probably acceptable. DonIago (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good man. Sorry, I was previously unaware of this declaration on your User page. 220.235.85.159 (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, I forgot about that one. It's more that editors aren't really obligated to do any more or less than they're comfortable doing (especially given that they're volunteers), and they don't necessarily do a thorough review of articles, so my removing one unsourced item, for instance, shouldn't be considered an endorsement of any other unsourced information in an article. By the same token though, I've had editors kind of bludgeon me for removing one item but not others, and if they have concerns about the other items, there's no reason they can't remove them just as quickly as I can, right?
 * Anyway, thanks for coming to me with your concerns; I hope this was helpful for you! DonIago (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Category names&#32; on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)