Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

When are you going to use Huggle again? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a planned time to do so...I can't use it at work, which is where I do most of my editing these days...why? Doniago (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you say! What for you delete my reference at Dharma Initiative? Don't you know what "rationality" is? My reference is absolutely correct! Thanks. Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's original research policy. You can't make the claim that the Dharma Initiative's paradigm is similar to...well, anything....without citing a reliable source.

If you still feel your information should be included, please bring it up at the article's Talk page rather than my own. That way other editors can weigh in as well. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? WHAT DO YOU THINK PARAPSYCHOLOGY IS??????? ISN'T IT PARADIGM, ALTERNATIVE TO TRADITIONAL WESTERN SCIENCE?? Don't you know what scientific rationality is??? Dude, you not qualified! Please, just ask any professional philosopher, just specify! I mean: General methodology is EXACTLY reliable source! It needn't ANY other external souses behind it!!! Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

1) Do not yell at me. 2) I'm certainly not more inclined to help you out or agree with you when you come across so aggressively. 3) As I said, if you feel it should be included and a different editor disagrees, discuss it at the article's talk page per WP:BRD. 4) Given your tone I'm not interested in discussing this any further beyond saying you've failed to convince me that your information isn't OR and you're clearly not objective about it. Good Day. Doniago (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

1) "Yell"? Dude... You was the only person who delete my references - you was only person who vandalize my work 2) "Aggressively"? You just vandalizing my labour! 3) I already answered 4) I'm not interested in YOUR non-qualified corrections too, dude! Good Day. With respect and love from Russia! Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Anyway, you demonstrated that you is totally unquantifiable: there was NO ONE professional philosophical person, who can prove your/mine position. YOU've failed. In Russia people like you called like "Loshock". It's norms of logical argumentation. With respect and love from Russia! Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Bored now. Doniago (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful using rollback. You disagreed with me about a tag on Alice's Restaurant, but you undid three other edits that I made as well. Disagreeing with a tag removal calls for undo, not rollback. Yworo (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, not sure how I missed that. Would have done a self-revert if I'd been aware, obviously. That being said, I don't think you should use the term "misuse" in a situation where it's unclear whether there was intent or not. Just my two cents. Doniago (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't file the AFD right. How on earth did you tack it onto a totally unrelated AFD from 2 years ago? I fixed it for you; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linus Caldwell. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

...very carefully? Sorry, AFD's aren't something I have a lot of experience with, thought I was handling it correctly based on the instructions. Thanks for the assist!

BTW, the other AFD wasn't completely unrelated, it was a multi-item one which included Linus Caldwell. Doniago (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch [1]! — Kralizec! (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! They weren't particularly subtle though. :) Doniago (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this user is User:Timmy Polo. (1) The account was created in 2006, while Timmy started editing in 2009 as an IP. (2) Timmy only edits plot summaries, this user does more. (3) Timmy is about 18 years old, and judging from this user's username, Dysprod1975 is about 35. (4) No {{helpme}} requests on the user's talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the user had been active quite a while back after I suggested on their Talk page that they review the plot summary guidelines. I agree they're probably not a sock; hopefully they'll review policy and all will be well. Doniago (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I have watchlisted every article Timmy Polo has ever edited, so when he comes back, his return will be short-lived. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Stubs Midori (web browser) Daisuke Suzuki Harry Harris (director) Lucy Harris Loren Bouchard Jim Bernstein Glenn McQueen Del Harris (squash player) 99 and 44/100% Dead Sable Island Pony Gail Katz Mike Barker (producer) Art Stevens Monster by Mistake Three Mounted Men Edward Harris (ornithologist) Ted Griffin The Man Who Sued God Donald Fullilove

Cleanup Gaza flotilla raid Dan Harris Harris Bank Merge Harry die strandloper Walt Disney Gold Classic Collection Tahawus, New York Add Sources Moon Over Isla Island Daddy Queerest Iron Man 2 Wikify Percy Jackson & the Olympians The Chinese Foundation Secondary School Gay Bride of Frankenstein Expand Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (video game) 100 A.D. The Cleveland Show (season 2)

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, I didn't miss that note and I am aware that not every song on the album fits into psychedelic rock, hence why I added psychedelic rock alongside rock in the infobox and didn't replace rock with psychedelic rock. A large portion of the songs on the album are in fact psychedelic rock songs and the article even describes it as "a defining album in the emerging psychedelic rock style", so I think that psychedelic rock at least deserves to be listed alongside rock in the infobox, just like in the article on Revolver (not every song on that album fits into psychedelic rock either). I would also appriciate it if you cut the wise cracks in the edit summaries. Thanks. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on the article's Talk page regarding this. If you feel psychedelic rock should be included you should discuss it there before re-adding. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't mean to make you think that I was vandalizing the article. --John of Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Doniago (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Doniago, I started a discussion on the issues raised by your and my edits on BLPN here, in case you want to add your three cents (one more than what mine is worth).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification! Doniago (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's the least I could do if I'm going to abuse you (smile) in public. More seriously, I think these kinds of issues need airing out, although I don't really hope for any consensus. In other forums, I've found very experienced editors who believe that you have to source everything, whereas others believe that sourcing is required only if the material is contentious. I guess I fall somewhere in between those two positions (the exercise of judgment as I said on BLPN), but I also view the issue from a practical perspective, which is why I mentioned the "logical extreme" of the sourcing everything position. Anyway, we'll see how many people contribute to the discussion and what they say.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree on all counts. I think editors tend to (not necessarily consciously) be more forgiving when it's information they -know- is true as well...I know I'm less likely to tag/delete something if I have no reason to question it. FWIW if the article hadn't been previously tagged I would have tagged rather than deleted, since I'll be the first to admit the info I removed wasn't particularly contentious. Doniago (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The part about the previous tag was my fault. When I posted to BLPN, I failed to notice the tag, or I wouldn't have included the parenthetical about the citation needed tag. You defended yourself very well on that point, but my apologies for saying it in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem! (smile)

I apologize; I hate it when other editors jump to conclusions, and I should have checked the article history before assuming that your deletion was of untagged material. (Nothing personal was intended, as I did not know who removed the material when I made my comment.) THF (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

THF, as I said above, it's really my fault, not yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We're cool. :) Doniago (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Doniago, regarding this edit the information you removed is on page 837 of the The Star Trek Encyclopedia written by Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda. It does verify that information. I shall readd it and cite the source. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry if I edited in error! Thanks for the catch! Doniago (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous about this. There is no possible way to document the intention of the show's producers short of their having been interviewed on every single cultural reference they ever used. This is proven by the fact that numerous other episodes in this and other series have completely non-cited entries in their respective "Cultural Reference" sections. So, either let the revision stand, or strip them out of every other show's episode entry.

Boobookf1 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Boobookf1

You're right, the uncited entries in the other articles should be removed. I've been tagging them and removing them as I've found them. If you still feel your edits are appropriate bring it up on the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in. Doniago (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You missed my point. I don't think they should be removed. As per Wikipedia's instructions on citing sources, noting Cultural References in an animated show would likely not require sourcing at all, as it does not have any likelyhood of ever being challenged (it's hardly a discussion of the causes of the Revolutionary War!). Furthermore, there is no source for such references as they are usually not documented. Wikipedia is a rich resource for checking if a TV show made a cultural reference. Sadly, this sort of unnecessary pedantry is ruining Wikipedia.

By tagging or removing the unsourced items editors -are- challenging the references. If you look at articles for episodes such as Something, Something, Something, Dark Side you'll note that there is a references section and that sources are provided. The same goes for many other articles for episodes of cartoon series. If you do not agree with this, you should discuss it in an appropriate forum for such...simply discussing it with me won't establish a consensus in any case. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is/was so darn much content... I'll be working on it in User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace A and return stuff to the Ryan article only when sourced. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. With sourcing and more real-world perspective I'd be happy to see the article salvaged. If there's any way you think I might be able to help let me know. Doniago (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As I get closer to completion, I'll gladly call you over for input... two heads being better than one. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Should I be blocked, will this be permanent or temporary? AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm not an Admin and I don't know whether you've previously created any issues that admins needed to address. In a best-case scenario I think the block would be for 24 hours, but it's not my place to say for sure. More information is available at WP:BLOCK. If you're really worried that you might do something that would lead to a block, I might recommend focusing on minor edits for the time-being, or taking some time off. Doniago (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to cut down the plot summary. However, I didn't like the errors in Horkana's version, so I was working on it. It'll be done by the end of today with far fewer spelling errors, and in a more flowing style. I simply chose the original version instead of trying to fix Horkana's. --Nmatavka (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Then, as Horkana said on the article's Talk page, I'd recommend working on it in your sandbox and waiting until after your changes are ready to be online to change the article itself. Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions. Doniago (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion in regards to this edit to the Avatar (2009 film) article. As a frequent editor of the article would you please offer a third opinion at Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Reference_to_Frank_Herbert. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. (smile) I threw in my two cents. If there are specific concerns you have that I didn't offer an opinion on you're welcome to bring them up, here or there. Doniago (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, I didn't mention anything inparticular since it would look like harvesting opinions by loading the request. Basically all I can ask is that the regular editors take a look at the edit and the concerns expressed and draw their own conclusions. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What sources do you need for just looking at the personnel list??!! --188.123.231.4 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming a list of personnel will necessarily be familiar to someone reading the article. Why are you making this assumption? In any event, if you feel this info does not require sourcing please discuss it at the article's Talk page so that other editors may weigh in. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Oh sorry, well I was writing down what I saw in the film; I didn't realise it was original research - sorry. DarkDancer06 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I think for material like that you'd really need a source indicating it was the creators' intent. I don't recall whether it's in the book (which I'm now re-reading) or not, but I didn't get that impression from the film. On a side-note it's not really essential to the plot for a reader to know about it, and we're trying to stick with shorter plot summaries when possible per WP:FILMPLOT. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh right okay, yeah I understand and thanks for your kind reply. And yes, Caspian falling for Ramandu's daughter is in the book; she's actually the one he marries. The attraction to Susan, however, was never in the book; that's only in the film - why they included that, I'll never know because it was a bit far-fetched in my opinion... Well anyway, I'm glad no harm has been done and how many words does the plot need because I am actually a writer so I'd be happy to help you trim it down if it's still too long. DarkDancer06 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew the attraction in PC wasn't in the book, though I felt it enhanced the movie to some degree. I didn't really see it in DT though, and don't think it's enough of an issue to merit inclusion in the plot summary. WP:FILMPLOT indicates that unless the plot's exceptionally convoluted it generally shouldn't exceed 700 words, though personally I don't tend to trim unless it's over 1,000. Doesn't mean other editors can't tag it or trim it though. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I provided the proof. With a citation like you asked. Besides none of the other trivia facts have citations. You CANNOT argue with that proof. 78.144.145.141 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC) NT92

Clearly other editors feel the same way as I do, so I'd suggest discussing this at the article's Talk page rather than here, especially given that you appear to be making an edit war of this, which I assume isn't how you'd like things to go. Also, the fact that none of the other trivia items have citations suggests that they -aren't- appropriate for inclusion, not that yours is. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Except mine is, because it is popular culture and it is true. Do you actually think i'm making it up? 78.144.145.141 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter whether I believe you. What does matter is that a) you need to provide third-party sourching and b) you're continuing to add the same material despite repeated reversions from various editors, which is edit warring. If you continue doing so you may end up being blocked from editing at least temporarily, as this is a policy violation and considered disruptive behavior. I would -strongly- advise you to discuss this at the article's Talk page rather than here, so that this can be handled in a more constructive manner. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. So would you argue with me if I removed all those other trivia facts, because they have no citations. 78.144.145.141 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That section was tagged due to content concerns this month. I would advise waiting a couple of months before removing the other trivia, to give other editors a change to find sourcing for what's there. Naturally, at the same time additional inappropriate material shouldn't be added. If the section wasn't tagged, I'd recommend tagging it. Deletion should generally only be used, IMO, when the editor who added the material can be easily identified and it was done recently. Otherwise, give people a chance to rescue the content. Doniago (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why can you not leave leave my edits there. If you're giving the other trivia a chance to be cited, then why not allow mine the time to find a reliable source (i am looking) instead of removing it instantly. I know that you know my edit is true. 78.144.145.141 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there's no reason you can't find a source and -then- add the material. Is there? And again, if you have so much of a problem with this, why are you not discussing it at the article's Talk page rather than confronting me directly, especially when other editors have made it clear that they share my concerns? Doniago (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that if someone was going to add a source for that other trivia, they would have done it by now? Nobody is going to add any citings and "rescue" the content. Nobody is going to read it and think "Whoa, I need some proof for that outlandish claim!!". Nobody is going to question the trivia, because it is just that, too trivial. If they were so interested i'm sure they would look it up themselves, using a good source, yet one the Wiki considers unreliable for some idiotic reason. I don't even see why this has to be cited. It's not like adding ridiculous claims. 78.144.145.141 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the information was tagged for needing help -this month-, and we're only on day 10 of said month, why would I think that? If you feel it should be removed, go ahead, be bold and remove it. You asked my advice so I gave it to you. Now please respect my request and discuss any further concerns at the article's Talk page rather than here, so that other editors can offer their opinions as well. Maybe you'll find other editors support your viewpoint! Thank you. Doniago (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this OK? http://news.softpedia.com/news/Driver-Parallel-Lines-Cheats-Part-2-and-Glitches-Wii-69368.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.145.141 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. -I- wouldn't remove it, but that doesn't meant the source is considered reliable. I'd recommend bringing it up at the article's Talk page if you would like a more qualified opinion. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this, its an interview with the developer: http://www.gamershell.com/articles/994.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.145.141 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That site isn't loading for me, unfortunately. Might I recommend posting both links to the article's Talk page and letting other editors chime in? Between the two you've probably got a compelling case for inclusion in any event. It's awesome that you're researching this! Doniago (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I contacted you incorrectly before, I was trying to figure out how to discuss a problem with you. I understand if you think the part about Arthur C. Clarke is irrelevant or 'original research' but the discussion of Mark Twain and Jack London is not original research. It is factual evidence and I provided two links that offer proof of this. Mark Twain and Jack London did not exist in San Francisco at the same time. Thank you.Don (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)decolley25

Hey there...this is the first contact attempt I'm seeing, actually. (smile) If you could send me a link to the article (or even better, a diff showing your material), I'll be happy to provide my thoughts on it in greater detail than whatever I said in my edit summary. Additionally, if you're really concerned about this and would like the input of other editors as well, I'd invite you to post at the article's Talk page rather than my own. Here you'll (usually) only get my opinion; there we can establish a consensus.

It's kind of late for me righht now, so if whatever the concern is involves me using my brain, you may need to wait a few hours. Sorry about that! Doniago (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to S-video, you will be blocked from editing.

Removal of other contributor's content without good reason is vandalism. If you keep it up, you will be reported. I note from your editing history and the history of S-video that you seem to have a long history of such vandalism. Romoval of content is vandalism under the Wikipedia WP:BLANKING policy which, despite the fact that I have left enough links for you, you clearly haven't bothereed to read up. As I have pointed out, uncited material is permitted on Wikipedia. You are simply being disruptive in deleting content, not because you have supplied any evidence that it is wrong, but simply, it has no citation. The exidstence of 7 and 9 pin plugs is common knowledge and thus, I argue that no citation is required. If it bothers you that much, do a bit of googling and you will find (probably) thousands of hits, one of which you could easily add yourself. 86.178.8.252 (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if had troubled yourself to read the discussion page, you might have discovered that 7 pin and 9-pin variants have been discussed on that page, so there is more evidence that they exist. 86.178.8.252 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just reviewed your edit history. Just yesterday alone you made 56 edits to various articles. None of those edits made any encyclopeadic contribution to any article. Virtually most edits reverted other people's work. The rest were just willy nilly insertion of citation tags. As you go back in the editing history, there are pages and pages of hundreds of edits in a similar vein. I even found a solid block of 12 consecutive reversions. I regard your editing history alone ample evidence of disruptive editing. If you continue, you stand an excelent chance of being blocked.

As for your contention that it only applies to user talk pages: that simply isn't true. Why else would Wikipedia have a template for inclusion on vandals talk pages (as used above). 86.178.13.15 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to report me. Please do so immediately, as I feel a third-party opinion would be quite helpful in this discussion. Doniago (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure: 'tis done. 86.178.13.15 (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. All i did was turn a word into a link, but point taken and i wont edit other's comments anymore. 99.162.156.99 (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I really dithered on whether or not to say anything at all, but figured it was better to give you the note since you can just wipe it off your Talk page and no harm done. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Doniago. A user has complained about your removal of material at S-Video and other articles. Please see WP:AN3#User:Doniago reported by User:86.178.13.15 (Result: ). You can reply there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advisory. I'm not especially concerned about this, as I think it arises from the IP's failure to understand and properly follow policy more than anything else, but I'll keep tabs on it and speak up if I feel my perspective is desired or needed. Thanks again! Doniago (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I disn't fail to understand anything. The very link to the editing policy that you yourself provided (WP:VERIFY) states very clearly, "in practice not everything need actually be attributed". You didn't even have to scroll down to find it. Please explain here which part of this policy, you failed to understand.

Going back to an example I quoted earlier, from the {{Eiffel Tower]] article. The whole phrase reads,

"The Eiffel Tower ... has become both a global icon of France and one of the most recognizable structures in the world."

This was tagged with a ^{[citation needed]} tag by some editor like yourself. It was discussed on the discussion page and decided that it fell within the above non attribution because it was common knowledge and not in doubt and the tag removed.

I am still awaiting to see your evidence that 7-pin and 9-pin variants of the S-video connector do not exist as you have clearly decided. 86.176.69.42 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the outcome of the discussion you started on 3RR regarding my "vandalism", you'll forgive me if I continue to belief that you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia procedures regarding sourcing material. I strongly recommend that any further discussion of content disputes occur at individual article Talk pages unless and until you are willing to assume good faith on my part, and I may not acknowledge any further messages you leave on my Talk page. Good Day. Doniago (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't that clear cut sunshine. You were unaware of what went on behind the scenes. Whereas, all the complaints filed after mine were dealt with, more or less, instantly, your case took them nearly 24 hours as it was referred up the administrative chain following some interchange with myself. Although they eventually made the wrong decision, it was close. 86.176.69.42 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I doubt your credibility unless and until you'd care to provide documentation of said discussion. But then, you've established that your views on providing sourcing are more flexible than my own. Doniago (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, establish? It's in the movie.

Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevUrban (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's notable/appropriate for inclusion. This isn't IMDb; please provide sourcing so that it's clear this isn't just WP:TRIVIA. If you disagree, bring it up at the article's Talk page where other users can weigh in. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's appropriate, it's a quirk to the movie. So, Pop Culture refereances about The Touch being used in American Dad is more relevant than a quirk about the movie itself. I know this isn't IMDb, this is a website where people are welcome to add what they feel is relevant to the article. Who are you to decide it stays out, any more than I feel it goes in? I don't understand what you mean sourcing; what are you trying to describe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevUrban (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, if you disagree, bring it up at the article's Talk page so other users can weigh in. This website is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia, as I mentioned before. As for American Dad, I don't believe any reference to The Touch is more relevant - not sure what you mean by bringing it up here. Please read WP:RS for information about sourcing. Doniago (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I do disagree, and I did bring it up. I understand it's an encyclopedia, this is information about the movie. As for American Dad, I'm making a comparison. Making a cross reference is to a song being shared in the Movie and another Cartoon series, is mearly trivia as well. I feel what I want to add is more relevant.KevUrban (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about then, as in reference to American Dad, consensus at that article's Talk page currently is to remove the song info and I fully intend to do so, since there's no indication as to how that is non-trivial. Doniago (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. What I'm debating is, as by the link you directed me to, "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book)...". The Movie itself is my source. How do I "source" the movie itself, so my addition is added as a flaw about the movie itself, without you removing it and accusing it of being trivia?KevUrban (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding about Wikipedia, as long as my addition falls within the parameters of the 5 Pillars (which is does), and Goals, Scope and Organisation of the Movie Project (which it does), I have every right to add my information.KevUrban (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the clarification. What you need is third-party sourcing. You need to illustrate that these issues aren't just trivial and aren't just points that a Wikipedia editor feels are important; that they were important enough that a reliable source took note of them. It isn't enough for us to say what errors occur in the film, we need to be able to say something like, "Roger Ebert particularly faulted the film for it's numerous goofs, such as..." followed by a proper citation.

I hope that clears things up for you. As I said, if you can't find a third-party source but still feel the material is appropriate, my strongest recommendation would be to discuss it at the article's Talk page. That way other editors can chime in and a consensus can be reached. Thank you for your understanding. Doniago (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Give a person a chance to reference their entry. There were numerous sentences on the Corey Feldman page that lacked references. Why single out and delete mine? Instead of being gung-ho, why not wait for someone to cite their reference after pointing out the mistake to them?

This type of behavior reflects a negative attitude on your part and I would imagine discourages those who are just starting to contribute. This is not helpful in any way.

If you remove my content, now that it has a citation, I will report the violation. In the future, being helpful would be the better approach to take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMercury39 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be adding unsourced content to a BLP to begin with, and that's standard policy. I deleted yours because it was clear who had added it; otherwise I would have tagged it for needing a citation, or removed it immediately if it was controversial, which is also standard BLP policy.

You claim that removing unsourced material is not helpful, neither is adding unsourced material to begin with, and WP:BURDEN explicitly states that it is the obligation of the editor adding material to provide referencing. Technically editors don't even have to tag material before removing it, though I usually will if I cannot determine who added it.

Why exactly would I remove cited material provided the citation was reliable? Doniago (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy to respond, though I'm a little confused why you asked me? Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for getting involved. Especially with the descent into incivility and the profusion of editors who apparently did not understand fundamental WP policy things were a bit overwhelming there. I don't believe anything else I could have added would have been productive.

I was initially referred to 3O by an admin (who ruled on the 3RR request that the IP had filed against me on the S-Video article), but as multiple editors were involved I didn't believe a 3O request would be considered. I then went to the Content Noticeboard, but so far that appears to have fizzled out. Because there've been a batch of unsourced and OR arguments lately, the next step (in my mind) was to try ask an involved editor in one of those who seemed to have a good understanding of policy to review the situation. On Thursday if nothing had changed I planned to do research to see what the next step beyond the Content Noticeboard would be, as I feel the profusion of unsourced material and the incivil nature of the Talk page discussion is doing a lot to harm the s-video article. One of my concerns is that IP's bouncing between different addresses, but I haven't looked into whether that potentially constitutes a sockpuppet situation.

Thanks again for being willing to step in. Doniago (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a sockpuppet situation - I only noticed 2 IPs, not a very effective sockpuppet attempt if it was... - as for wp:content - I'd guess that the content is mostly correct - the main problem seems to be editors unwillingness to fix problems brought up on pages they are monitoring. There are such things as the "expert attention" tag and Wikipedia:Pages needing attention , Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check (and see the links also on that page) but I think the main problem is too many articles, too few editors. I have a long list of articles that need work, plus many more articles that need to be written - and I guess that most editors have the same issue. The best hope is that someone on the s-video page will pick up the stick and actually start working on the article.

Why not try Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup they might have someone who can work on the article.Sf5xeplus (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP has used at least 3 IP's just on my Talk page I believe. I don't know/care if they're puppeting per se, but if you want to communicate with them it would be nice if there was a centralized Talk page for them. I also tend to believe that the content is correct, but I take issue with editors deliberately adding unsourced material to a page that's already been long-term tagged for having that exact problem...and obviously their incivility and apparent confusion regarding sourcing policies was completely unhelpful.

In my case it also didn't help that this came in the middle of a huge batch of situations where editors began challenging sourcing policies (just scroll up my Talk page to see what I mean), to an unprecedented degree in my personal experience, and each of them seemed to be feeding off the others.

I'm planning to give it a bit of time to let the discussion on the s-video talk page die down before I take any other steps, but I do appreciate your links! It might be helpful if the other editors were given the links as well so that they knew there were resources available to help them with sourcing, if they find themselves unwilling or unable to do the sourcing themselves but want the material preserved.

Thanks again for stepping into the situation! Doniago (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no tags in the section that you removed. Also, removing the section about José Feliciano's cover of "Light My Fire" is like removing the info that the sky is blue. There's sometimes a time to ignore all rules.

Having said that, I had a brief check for sources on Allmusic and couldn't find much. I'm sure that the sources are out there, probably in print, but I'm not that familiar with sources for musical articles. Graham87 06:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact the entire "Covers" section, including the Feliciano subsection, is tagged. The tag is no longer entirely accurate (some info has been tagged), but to say that section isn't tagged is somewhat inaccurate. Given that I've never heard of the Feliciano cover, I can't say that your analogy works for me either. Perhaps we should bring it up on the article's Talk page, as I'm not familiar with sourcing music articles either? Doniago (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed the tag. Here in Australia the Feliciano cover is almost as famous as the original version of the song, and judging by the article, the same is true in the U.S. (I'm not sure about other countries though). The Feliciano cover seemed to be the most important one; see the source that I'm about to add to the article. Graham87 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, as long as there's sourcing I'm happy. (smile) Also glad we were able to talk about this in a civil and productive manner (as my Talk page will amply demonstrate I've been dealing with some pretty active disagreements lately)! Calling it a night now, but may or may not look at it again tomorrow (honestly, the article isn't particularly high on my trouble-spot list). Cheers! Doniago (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You reverted edits I made on the IHOP page. The edits were not anything speculative or crazy, they were things that I witnessed with my own eyes as a patron at the restaurant. There isn't a way that there can be some sort of bibliographic reference on this. You really need to reexamine your editing and reverting criteria, as I think you are on some sort of cracked-out power trip. Please stop it. I'm going to go revert it back now. Please don't mess with it. 184.91.144.196 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. I suggest you review WP:OR and explain to me how this is not original research, then.

Also, when your edits are reverted, you should discuss it at the Article's Talk page if you feel your material should be included. That way other editors can also offer their opinions. Doniago (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doniago, I suppose you are right. The story about Jackie Chan does not really belong into the special section about "Around the World in 80 Days". It would be great if you could bring this to the section of Jackie Chan. For me it is not possible, because I have no admission to do that. Thank you! Cathy & Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.7.215 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't really feel comfortable inserting the material myself, as I'm not especially familiar with it or its significance. Can I ask why you're unable to insert the material yourself? As it is your information, I think it would be best if you were the editor to add it. If it's because the Jackie Chan article is protected, you can ask that the material be added via the article's Talk page. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's disruptive, and in most cases you don't have consensus to do it. Just because YOU consider it trivia doesn't mean it still shouldn't be there Purplebackpack89 01:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel it -should- be there, start a discussion on the appropriate article's Talk page so that a consensus can be established rather than getting pissy with me. That's how WP:BRD works. And frankly, when you come to my Talk page this way I somehow doubt you're either assuming good faith or looking for a productive conversation. Among other things, a "please" or "thank you" would have helped. Heck, you didn't even mention an article so I could review my own edit and possibly offer an apology. Doniago (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted as you failed to follow the BRD guidelines, deliberately mischaracterized my edits, and have not provided any indication as to how the episode is notable (hint - third-party coverage, per the template's own wording, would be nice). If you take issue with my reverts please bring it up at the article's Talk page so that other editors can offer their opinions and a consensus can be established. Discussing them here is inappropriate and unlikely to be productive. Thank you for your consideration. Doniago (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How am I the disruptive one? Looking at the history, you have made quite a few edits to this page; nearly all of them have involved the removal of content. In that process, you've undid several different editors. Also, the notability tag is completely spurrious, unncessary and wrong. Purplebackpack89 04:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, please bring up your concerns at the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact removing others contributions just because you don't like them is vandalism (WP:BLANKING). Some of the material that you have removed is common knowledge and thus does not require a citation. It's a bit like tagging the phrase, "The Eiffel Tower is Paris's most recogniseable landmark" with a [citation required] tag. If you search around Wikipedia, you will find that there is much content that is uncited, but has been accepted by concensus. True, you do get the odd idiot who will go around tag bombing articles or just tagging the head of the article. 86.176.155.137 (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check the article's Talk page again, as a third party opinion supports my view that the information is trivial unless there's third-party sourcing or other information regarding how the use of the music is notable. Doniago (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did I mention music? I'm talking generally. I have found numerous instances of WP:BLANKING. It is almost as though you have self appointed yourself as an arbiter of what may appear in articles. I am refering to edits that are reverted by yourself immediately the content is added without any citation needed tag being added. Like it or not, that's vandalism.

I note that you have reverted the tags at the head of the S-video article. The tags are inappropriate to that article as the subject matter is not in contention. 86.176.155.137 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to with WP:BLANKING - that applies to User Talk pages, not Articles. Please provide a correct link or explain what policy you are concerned with.

The Son of Stan edits which provoked this thread specifically involved music played during the episode. I assumed that was your concern.

Removing unsourced material is not vandalism. Inserting it is. See WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFY. If you can't establish where your information is coming from, you should not add it to begin with.

I AM contesting the subject matter of the S-video article. If you are unwilling or unable to provide better sourcing for the material, it is eligible for removal per the policies I've already linked to. Good day. Doniago (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

They you're an idiot. A simple google will of the subject will get hundreds (if not thousands) of hits. For example here is someone selling the leads to connect to the sockets http://www.svideo.com/7pin.html .86.178.8.252 (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, watch the movie? I feel this should be perfectly obvious to anyone who's seen it and worth being included. So if describing plot elements in a movie constitutes "original research" then you might as well take the entire page down. Hide behind your BS protocol if you want. It appears that you aren't very popular here anyway, people like you are the reason this site will never reach its potential. (99.3.161.28 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

When you're willing to be WP:CIVIL and drop the personal attacks we'll talk. Until then I'm really not inclined to take you particularly seriously. Ta. Doniago (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you deleted an entire section of an article wholesale, instead of flagging it with a "citation needed".

If you need me to cite a WP page to explain why this is a bad thing, please see: WP:REMOVAL. Specifically:

---

Unsourced information

Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed.

If you think a source can be found, be you do not wish to find one yourself, you can add the template {{fact}} ({{cn}} will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information.

---

The latter procedure is much more conducive to productivity. Rampant deletion with no warnings will only gain ire.

TravelingCat (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That article has -already- been tagged since December 2008. As for wholesale deletion, I agree that it is an option to be avoided, and in my more recent edits have taken to moving text to the Talk page under a collapse template rather than deleting. In any case, simply reinserting the text into the article while the article is tagged is not, to my mind, a desirable approach. Doniago (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you object to my restoring the text with the inclusion of a Template:Underconstruction box while I locate adequate citations?TravelingCat (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would rather the text was kept someplace less open until citations are available, such as the Talk page or a spot off your userspace, but I wouldn't seriously object to your proposal as long as it doesn't become an indefinite scenario. Thanks for working with me on this, it's very appreciated. Doniago (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems blatantly obvious that 2012 used The Shining for their teaser. But of course it's not going to be cited anywhere. People are just going to have to deal with being less educated about 2012 then. ForeverRedAce (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's how WP:NOR works; if there's no reliable sourcing for such information it's generally inappropriate for inclusion. Personally I tend to think that if nobody's discussed it anywhere there's also some question as to whether the information is non-trivial enough for inclusion in the first place. In any event, our hands seem to be tied on this one. Doniago (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Try reading the talk page before reverting. Removal of the NPOV tag is agreed on. Mystylplx (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Something to that effect still should have been placed in the edit summary. Doniago (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I see from the other messages here that you have a reputation for unilateral decisions and for deleting others' contributions without forewarning or discussion. I also note that you have been the object of an official complaint and have received at least one public notice of such. You have deleted a disproporionate amount of my material and I am unprepared to take this passively. As for the material you have deleted from my edits I am quite happy to accept some of your points and will not replace them until I can offer sources. But not all! As an example, your sweeping comment that Youtube is an unreliable source is not a valid one when the video concerned is the official editor's cut and not a home made movie. This is one example for which a comment/question on the Talk page questionning the source would have been appropriate before any deletion. You seem to regard yourself as judge and jury! Some of the other references were as valid as any other reference on the page concerned. If you are prepared to accept gossip blogs as a reference (which has been the case on the page I edited) I think some of my references can stand.

Furthermore, I see from your exchanges with other users that one of your standard answers is 'if you don't like what I've done, discuss it on the Talk page so other editors can offer opinions.' At the same time you seem to have the reputation of deleting other people's entries without any such discussion yourself. You should consider following your own advice. I shall follow carefully your future activities with regard to any contributions/edits/corrections with which I have personal involvement and in particular your persistent and judgemental deletions.

If you're going to bring up complaints filed against me, you should perhaps review the actual complaints and ensuing discussion, as they were ultimately not considered credible. Needless to say, a notification that a complaint has been filed in no way reflects upon the validity of said complaint.

You should also cite specific examples of edits I've made that trouble you so that we are not speaking in the abstract.

My approach to deleting material that violates policy is as follows-

1. 1. If I can identify who added it, I remove it directly and if I feel it's merited, provide the contributing editor with a reminder of whatever policy I believe they violated.
   2. If I cannot identify the contributing editor I tag the material appropriately unless it's a severe violation, then remove the material after no less than 30 days.

In the case of your edits, it was clear whom the contributing editor was, so I took the first approach. Would you have preferred it if I had tagged the material and deleted it later, perhaps at a time when it would not have been clear to you that your material had been impacted?

If you're going to dispute my edits, then as you yourself note, discussing it on the article's Talk page is generally the better approach. That way other editors can offer their opinions as well. If you're going to discuss it -here-, please include a link to the article in question so that it's clear what edits we're actually disputing. Thank you.

My understanding is that Youtube is generally -not- considered a reliable source regardless of the specific content. I'm open to reconsidering that with supporting material, but thus far no editor has to my mind ever challenged this assertion, so why would I bring it up on a Talk page, especially as I know you can bring it up if you wish to re-add the material?

Please let me know what "other references" you're talking about. Aside from the YT link the only link I see you providing is a fansite that is quite clearly in violation of WP:EL. As per above, if you disagree, the article's Talk page is where you should discuss it -before- re-adding the material per WP:BRD. Gossip blogs are most certainly not and never have been considered reliable, and if they are being used on the page the refs should be reevaluated.

As to your second paragraph, see WP:BRD again. You Boldly added material, I Reverted your additions, and now the edits should be Discussed if you have a problem with the removal.

Thanks a ton for assuming good faith and approaching me in the spirit of working with me rather than simply throwing accusations at me. Good Day. Doniago (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I note your reply. Your judgement that complaints against you were "ultimately not considered credible" is entirely your own conclusion. I accept some of what you say but I am very far from satisfied with many of your comments. You once again feel that other people must use the Talk page but you do not need to do so. That YOU can delete without discussion and THEN other people are free to discuss it. How good of you!!

I have read at least eight complaints against you on your page and feel it is time action was taken against you for your aggressive deletions.Blotski (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my judgement is based on the fact that when the problems above were discussed and other editors joined the discussion, consensus was that my actions may not have been the best possible, but were essentially true to policy and certainly not actionable. In fact, I have revised my approach to removing unsourced material to some degree of late.

Again, review WP:BRD. This is how it works - if an editor adds material, I have the right to remove it if I feel it violates policy and -then- discussion ensues. I'm not obligated to discuss a removal beforehand. Nor should unsourced material even be added in the first place. See WP:VERIFY and particularly WP:BURDEN.

If you feel that actions need to taken against me, you are of course welcome to follow proper procedure to ensure that your concerns are investigated. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: WP:BRD If I may quote - 'Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy; some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." Blotski (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been monitoring your movements and you are obviously a vandal and I shall treat you as such from now on. It appears that you do not have any other occupation than to trawl through Wikidpedia for hours on end vandalising the work of others. You are a bully. How dare you post references to 'assuming good faith' and such when you are obviously incapable of the same. I despise bullies and shall oppose you ruthlessly. You have met your match!!

Why not just report me for vandalism and get it over with them? Either way, if all you're going to post here is personal attacks such as accusing me of vandalism without even explaining how anything I'm doing is violating policy, please note that future messages from you may be summarily deleted. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I SHALL report you for vandalism as you suggest. Your behaviour is disgraceful. If you go over your list of activities it is appalling how it consists overwhelmingly of deleting the work of others. I despise the lazy, self satisfied way you hide behind 'policy' without ever addressing the arrogance and mean spirited nature of the overwhelmingly negative input of your work. Who gave you the single handed right to interpret policy? Why don't you just contribute positively? If my attacks are personal then you must look at yourself as ask what it is you do that inpires such anger in others but I shall re-phrase to make it less personal. Your activities are akin to those of a vandal.

Bored now. Doniago (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw you reverted an inclusion of Brian's son Dylan here for reason of failing to make more than one appearance. However, Dylan has been referenced in future episodes, so don't you think it may be an appropriate inclusion given that he's involved in the continuity and not just an one-episode character? Geeky Randy (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The note at the top of the article says "appear" in multiple episodes. As that wasn't the case I was bold and took the phrasing at face-value. It also seemed likely to me that someone would have already tried to include an entry for this character given we're not talking about a recent episode, and that consequently there might be precedent for the remove. In any case, I wasn't planning to contest a re-addition and can't even say that I'd necessarily involve myself in any discussion of the subject. That being said, why aren't we discussing this on the article's Talk page? Doniago (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not discussing this at the article page because I thought it'd be fair to allow you (the deleter) to have your voice heard. I'm not going to create a topic there if there isn't an issue and wait around for your response. I had a question for you, and I knew I'd get an answer if I posted on your talk page. It worked. Geeky Randy (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not mean to sound accusatory or suggest that I was questioning your motives. I wouldn't have minded the conversation being launched there, but I do appreciate your intentions in coming to me directly first. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a pretty minor one-line edit to an article about a television episode which you removed as unsourced. I think that was ridiculous and I have therefore raised the issue formally in the article's talk page, pursuant to my view that what you removed was both obvious and non-controversial. Separately, however, I note that you posted on my personal talk page a note that begins "Welcome to Wikipedia!" which could certainly be read as an attempt to imply that my failure to follow the rules as you understand them is a result of inexperience and that you are trying to help me learn the ropes so that I don't embarrass myself again. That's at least plausibly insulting, given the fact that I have contributed hundreds of edits since 2005 -- three years longer than you have been involved -- and have never had anyone in all those years question my competence. How you come across to fellow members of the Wikipedia community should be a matter of great concern to you and a strong motivation to avoid even the appearance of discourtesy. Zigamorph (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the message I gave you implicitly assumes good faith and there's no reason to take it personally. It certainly wasn't intended as sarcasm. I reviewed your Talk page and saw little activity, so I consequently assumed you are not a very active editor and opted to take the lowest-key approach I felt was appropriate. My apologies if I ruffled your feathers. As for the reference itself, thank you for bringing it up at the article's Talk page. I have replied there. Doniago (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)