User talk:Doniago/Archive 58
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
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) 12:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- List of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni
- added links pointing to Steve Gordon, Ronald Burns, Kenneth Cooper, James Moody, Norman Walker, Warren Wilson, Edwin Fisher and Dudley Williams
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Notice of discussions regarding updates to MOS:TV
This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to MOS:TV, given you participated in the discussion and/or expressed interest in the discussion seen here. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Slut-shaming
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slut-shaming. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kaine (disambiguation)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kaine (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Riverhead (town), New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Downs. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mock the Week
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mock the Week. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
STID
I just want to let you know that I'm not trying to be unreasonable, but I am trying to make a point to the IP who originally deleted the section entirely without any discussion and very questionable rationale. I have asked for a reasonable rationale for removing the section and a simple revision which the IP has repeatedly refused to provide. Instead the IP has become increasingly argumentive and has even hurled personal insults on my Talk page. You say that is cuts both ways, what has the IP offered to try to build a consensus. So far nothing. This kind of behavior that we should be discouraging. I know of too many great editors who have left Wikipedia because they've tried to be reasonable and build consensus but are just met with bullying tactics like the IP has employed. Now I think that I have come more than halfway by agreeing to remove the section (based on rationale provided by David, not the IP). So asking for the IP to come with a simple revision to mention the sequel is not so much to ask. Frankly, one sentence like, "The film was followed by a sequel 'Star Trek Beyond' released in 2016", would be fine with me. But I don't want to let the IP off the hook for it. That only encourages the IP's bad behavior as well as the bad behavior of other unregistered IPs. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your coming to me to talk about this.
- From an outsider's perspective, the discussion on the Talk page was getting way out of hand (I think it's legitimate to call it a ping-pong match), and to me it looked a bit like you were trying to rub the IP's nose in what you perceived as their mistake rather than trying to collaborate with them in the interests of improving the article. Once another editor spoke in support of the changes the IP wanted to make, though, consensus no longer favored your view on the matter, and at that point it became partly your responsibility to explain why you feel the information should remain despite the arguments put forth for its removal. I think if I was in your place and no other editors had spoken up, I would have pursued dispute resolution, or possibly simply walked away depending on how invested I was.
- I had been observing the discussion for some time, but resisted getting involved for as long as I did because I hoped you and the IP would reach an understanding without additional editors speaking up. I felt I had to say something when it seemed clear to me that the IP was suggesting the entire section be removed and you replied that they should propose alternate text, which I didn't believe was what they had in mind.
- I wasn't aware of them interacting with you on your Talk page. That's unfortunate, but we should try to segregate conduct matters from content matters. If you're bothered by whatever they said to you (I haven't looked), I'd recommend gently bringing WP:NPA to their attention. Or I'll do it, if you want me to.
- Based on your last several sentences, I'm concerned that you're becoming a bit pointy about this. We should pursue what's best for the article, and endlessly arguing over this isn't best for the article or anyone involved. Please consider bringing the sentence you have up above to the Talk page. It will be a show of good faith on your part and hopefully elicit some from the IP in turn. DonIago (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I'm not opposed to the section being deleted. Just the way the IP went about it. Both times David gave good rationale for the deletion and I agreed with him immediately. Maybe I've become bit pointy about this. However, my feeling is the IP has offered nothing. Since the article is stable at the moment, I don't feel it is too much of a disruption to leave it as has been for several years at the moment. My fear is that the IP will walk away from this thinking that they won without offering anything in return, thus encouraging that kind of behavior. And I believe that I have shown good faith in agreeing to the deletion. I don't believe the IP has in return and that's what I'm looking for. As far as reporting the IP, I don't want to do that. I could have reported them or IP hopping days ago, but that is too extreme. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think I understand where you're coming from, though I'm glad you acknowledge that you may be being a bit pointy, as I don't really agree with how you've been approaching the subject in your more recent posts. As you don't have an issue with the removal itself, but would like to hear from the IP (who hasn't said anything today), may we agree that if neither the IP nor other editors say anything by the end of this week, you or I will either remove or sharply trim down the section next week? DonIago (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. Based on the David's rationale, I have no problem removing the section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cool.
As another editor has now spoken in support of the removal, I think we can expedite this. Would you be willing to just leave a note at the ID Talk page clearly indicating that you're okay with it at this point?Which I see you just did, so nevermind. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)- Already have and have removed the section. If the IP had just brought up the mention earlier, this could have been resolved days ago. My worry is still that the IP didn't learn anything from this. From the beginning I got the impression that he or she had an attitude that the rules the rest of us adhere to just didn't apply to him or her. I still get that impression. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, their future editing patterns will either prove or disprove your concerns, but I think you may be misreading them a bit. Anyway, glad we got this sorted! DonIago (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I did misread it. But the IPs initial attitude was that he or she had every right to delete the section and that the Onus was on myself and the other editor who restored it and that he or she had no obligation to provide a rationale argument for the deletion. As well as the outright refusal to register like the rest of us have and IP hop. To me those are the actions of someone who thinks they are above the rules. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see. But thank you for your understanding and help to resolve this. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I actually considered saying something when WP:ONUS was brought up, but for one reason or another decided not to get involved at that point. I think after reading it I may have been uncertain enough about how to interpret it that I didn't want to make a possibly inaccurate statement. I understand your concerns about IP editors, but I don't think there's evidence here that they were doing so in bad faith, and as was pointed out to you, we shouldn't assume bad faith on the grounds that an editor don't wish to create an account...well, really, we shouldn't assume bad faith in general. In any case, I think we're best off just looking to see whether they create problems in the future, rather than dwelling on a resolved matter. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I never thought the IP was acting out of bad faith, just an arrogance that he or she didn't have to justify their actions but everyone else did. Take care. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I actually considered saying something when WP:ONUS was brought up, but for one reason or another decided not to get involved at that point. I think after reading it I may have been uncertain enough about how to interpret it that I didn't want to make a possibly inaccurate statement. I understand your concerns about IP editors, but I don't think there's evidence here that they were doing so in bad faith, and as was pointed out to you, we shouldn't assume bad faith on the grounds that an editor don't wish to create an account...well, really, we shouldn't assume bad faith in general. In any case, I think we're best off just looking to see whether they create problems in the future, rather than dwelling on a resolved matter. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I did misread it. But the IPs initial attitude was that he or she had every right to delete the section and that the Onus was on myself and the other editor who restored it and that he or she had no obligation to provide a rationale argument for the deletion. As well as the outright refusal to register like the rest of us have and IP hop. To me those are the actions of someone who thinks they are above the rules. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see. But thank you for your understanding and help to resolve this. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, their future editing patterns will either prove or disprove your concerns, but I think you may be misreading them a bit. Anyway, glad we got this sorted! DonIago (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Already have and have removed the section. If the IP had just brought up the mention earlier, this could have been resolved days ago. My worry is still that the IP didn't learn anything from this. From the beginning I got the impression that he or she had an attitude that the rules the rest of us adhere to just didn't apply to him or her. I still get that impression. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cool.
- No problem. Based on the David's rationale, I have no problem removing the section. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think I understand where you're coming from, though I'm glad you acknowledge that you may be being a bit pointy, as I don't really agree with how you've been approaching the subject in your more recent posts. As you don't have an issue with the removal itself, but would like to hear from the IP (who hasn't said anything today), may we agree that if neither the IP nor other editors say anything by the end of this week, you or I will either remove or sharply trim down the section next week? DonIago (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I'm not opposed to the section being deleted. Just the way the IP went about it. Both times David gave good rationale for the deletion and I agreed with him immediately. Maybe I've become bit pointy about this. However, my feeling is the IP has offered nothing. Since the article is stable at the moment, I don't feel it is too much of a disruption to leave it as has been for several years at the moment. My fear is that the IP will walk away from this thinking that they won without offering anything in return, thus encouraging that kind of behavior. And I believe that I have shown good faith in agreeing to the deletion. I don't believe the IP has in return and that's what I'm looking for. As far as reporting the IP, I don't want to do that. I could have reported them or IP hopping days ago, but that is too extreme. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Limp Bizkit
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Limp Bizkit. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)