This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doniago. 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.
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!
(Per declining my 3O request): If you look at the thread, the issues of WP:V, which is entirely what this seems to be about, is not being addressed by anyone else. The other editors commented only after being asked to do so by the other editor, as far as I understand. That is why I am requesting a 3O on the issue of V. I cannot see a way to write this as an RfC. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
If you're saying that nobody is engaging with you on a specific issue of concern, then that wasn't clear to me from the Talk page. It might be worth breaking that out into a separate thread. 3O, though, is for third opinions; if nobody will engage with you on that particular question, then 3O still isn't going to be the right venue for assistance. You might be better off starting a clear thread stating what you intend to do with the article, bringing it to 3O if/when only one other editor engages with you, and pushing your edits through if nobody engages with you. Sorry if I'm coming across as a pedant, but 3O really is literally for third opinions. Have you tried asking members of related WikiProjects (see the headers on the Talk page) to get involved in the conversation? DonIago (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
As I wrote on the 3O request, and on the diff link: I removed text because I claim it failed verification. I was reverted. (My re--reverting was because of my understanding of WP:V.) I asked the editor to meet the WP:Burden of verifiability for content to be included. This editor believes they did and I believe they did not. The other editors who commented were not addressing WP:V, but are instead talking about tone or WP:RS.
I haven't disputed facts or sources (for now -- I haven't looked). I dispute whether the content is verifiable -- whether it is in the source to begin with. The other editor disagrees with this basic notion. It's not about RS or content. I don't know how else to ask someone to give an opinion on V - there's no verifiability noticeboard like WP:RSN. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This is why I think the most productive option would be to summarize the situation as you understand it to be on the Talk page...because right now it's hard to follow all of what's occurred...concisely state what your preferred state for the article would be, and then consider asking for additional opinions at the applicable Wikiprojects listed on the Talk page if nobody chimes in, or file a 3O request if only one editor disagrees with you and you can't reach a compromise at that point. The unfortunate reality is that disputes about article content can take a lot of time to work through, especially if editors aren't engaging with you. Trust me, I've been there myself, and I sympathize. But perhaps the other editors, seeing that you don't feel your concerns have been addressed, will respond in a way that does resolve your concerns (if you start a new thread, considering pinging them as a courtesy). DonIago (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
FYI, DonIago, I'm the other editor. I'll be happy to answer any concerns you have about this. Please be aware that I am concerned about SamuelRiv's behavior and the things that have been missing from his comments even though I've repeatedly asked for them pbp03:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks PBP. I still think the best option would be a concise restatement of what's going on. The existing thread is a bit of a mess and has more than two editors involved (hence my 3O decline). Trying to reframe the situation may help the both of you (as well as any other editors who wish to be involved) to reach a common understanding. Otherwise, if it feels like an insurmountable content dispute, you may have to go through WP:DRN or such. If it's a conduct issue, OTOH, that's a different matter.
My only intended involvement was to fix the 3O request, which IIRC was malformatted, but then to decline it when it appeared that the dispute involved more than two editors, and consequently 3O wasn't the proper venue (essentially a procedural decline). I don't personally have the bandwidth to do much digging into it otherwise right now, though if you both really desire my specific input then I could try taking a look at it tomorrow, though I can't promise I'll have anything useful to contribute. DonIago (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
TBH, this weekend, it became a conduct issue, Sam's more specifically. Consensus had developed AGAINST Sam's position and he STILL reverted me, at which point another editor reverted him. Then Sam asked for a 3O and didn’t get it, so...he's here now. Sam seems to not understand the word "no", and he's gone through this entire process treating me as entirely beneath him (rather odd since I have 35K edits and he has 4K). pbp03:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, having more edits doesn't necessarily mean one has a better grasp of things either (I'm not saying you don't, just acknowledging the possibility). I can understand feeling that only two editors expressing opposition to your edits isn't especially meaningful (I've had discussions where it wasn't until more editors became involved that the consensus shifted). Requesting additional opinions from the relevant WikiProjects may be the way to go. An RfC is also an option, but I would hope you could all agree that this isn't rising to the level where something of that magnitude is called for. I'm assuming Sam isn't continuing to revert; if so, that could start to be an edit-warring concern. DonIago (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand how my 3O submission was malformed, and I don't know how I can be more clear on a brief summary than I have been. I provided the diff of the content dispute. I removed content due to WP:V and was reverted, and my request for WP:Burden is disputed. The other editors are not commenting on verifiability, which is why I asked for a 3O.
I went ahead and put a request on the Politics WikiProject, which seems like the most active of those listed on the article. I still would appreciate input on the matter of WP:V if will offer it, as I still do not think a subject-matter WikiProject is the correct forum at this stage. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I did confuse your request with the one below, my apologies for the confusion; yours wasn't malformed, but it did appear when I looked at the Talk page that there were already more than two editors involved. A WikiProject is relevant because that's the best place to find other editors interested in the subject matter of the article in question who can offer informed opinions. You could also ask at the talk page for WP:V since that seems to be what your concerns revolve around, but I'm not sure that's as good an idea or I would have already suggested it.
The reason why I think you should add a break and a clear restatement is because right now any editor who's considering weighing in has to wade through a lot of back and forth, which could very well discourage them from wanting to bother. We're all volunteers here, and the best way to encourage people who contribute opinions is to make it easy for them to do so. In its current state, I at least don't feeel that the discussion at the Talk page is really doing that. DonIago (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Doniago, just wanted to let you know that Samuel won't drop this matter. He demanded dispute resolution. I said it wasn't necessary but he did it anyway. Please check out the comments on the talk page. Samuel is IDHT on you and everyone else. pbp13:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I've replied at your Talk page, but the TL;DR version is: 1) I don't think DRN is an unreasonable course to pursue at this point, 2) if you feel the problem is more one of conduct than content at this point, WP:ANI may be your best path forward, but can be...challenging, and 3) DRN is a voluntary mediation process in any case, but it would show good faith on your part to participate, and hopefully will give everyone involved a clear path forward on this matter. The shorter version is: maybe Samuel is beating a dead horse more than they should, but I don't see how you lose anything by showing that you're willing to participate in the DRN process. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Question Regarding adding Hyper links
I've read your message, I thought that 'Technocracy' was an unusual word so I linked with an article, and could you kindly tell me why it does not give any content or meaning. Thank you Tomlovesfar (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The issue was that you linked it multiple times, which goes against linking policy. You're welcome to link it at its first occurrence, or even judiciously throughout the article (definitely not more than once per section). DonIago (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd recommend reaching out to any WikiProjects that might be listed on the Talk page of the article in question and asking for additional opinions that way. Otherwise, if you want to link me to the article in question, I can take a look, but I probably won't weigh in if it's not a subject I'm familiar with or the dispute doesn't involve something I feel I can opine on. DonIago (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing you know the saying the easiest way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. You would be less aware of my saying "The surefire way to get nowhere is to not move." I like the quotation "Start by doing what's necessary, then do what's possible, suddenly you're doing the impossible.
I'm of the opinion Wikipedia doesn't have enough acronyms, guidelines, etc. Often its principles could be restated more clearly and revamped. On the Nadine Strossen page the article is more complete with certain phrases. Summerdays1 (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you're asking for from me here. I have no idea who Nadine Strossen is, and my only involvement here was to decline your 3O request on procedural grounds; the instructions there clearly state that an issue should be thoroughly discussed (emphasis theirs) before filing a request.
In any event, someone has now replied to you at the Talk page, so I would recommend making an effort to work with them. If you can't reach a consensus after talking with them, then assuming no other editors weigh in, you'll have better grounds for filing a 3O request. If other editors do weigh in, then you'll have a third opinion and 3O will no longer be an applicable venue on that ground, though you'd have other options for dispute resolution. I hope this is helpful. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
You would be an asset, boon, etc. if you helped or looked at Guardian H's edits. They make some good or useful edits but clearly fall into the deletionist camp. The edits they make are damaging and a novice to this site or editing can see that if they plow through the huge volume of edits GH makes. Summerdays1 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of bandwidth right now, but I'll see what I can do. If I don't follow-up here within 48 hours of this message, you're welcome to ping me if you'd still like my involvement. Thanks for your patience. DonIago (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed you said something on the Strossen page however the following is not addressed. The editor we're mentioning has been making drastic edits. I appreciate your interest. Summerdays1 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
What would you like me to say? Guardian H left edit summaries explaining why they were reverting your edits, among them that the text you were inserting was duplicative, and you haven't addressed their concerns in the discussion on the Talk page. If you feel Guardian H hasn't sufficiently explained their concerns, you should ask them to clarify their concerns. DonIago (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how keen you are into delving into something. GH apparently does well enough in scholastics. They don't understand many of the core Wikipedia principles and abbreviations. If you look at their edits which go back a little bit, some have to do with a personal belief that institutions and colleges are being promoted unfairly, whether deliberately or in an advertising sense. They are wrong about that. Rankings have been around quite a while and stand up as evidence. Going further in other topics (people in politics or academia, etc.) they camouflage their edits saying that something has appeared in the lede or other places in the article in question. One place to start is look at their edits where the net result is a subtraction in an article versus an addition. Summerdays1 (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to go on a fishing trip. Engage with the concerns being raised at the article's Talk page, or if you really want me involved, give me specific diffs to look at that you feel are problematic and explain very clearly why you feel they are problematic. DonIago (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how to post diffs, I explained if you looked at every edit they made which resulted in a loss of text you can spot them. I'll post a list here of a selection or most of the articles with which there are problems. Summerdays1 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Rye Country Day School, Joseph Stiglitz, Joel Primack, Philip Bobbitt, Allan Bloom, Julian Simon, Donald Boudreaux, Albert Hibbs, Millburn High School, Vanderbilt University, Paul Davidson, Texas Tech University, Bob Casey Jr.; Department of Geography, University of Cambridge; Katherine Faber, Kelley School of Business, Universitry of South Carolina School of Law, Melissa Nobles, Jane Richardson, Swarthmore College, Clarence Thomas, St. Mark's School of Texas, George Mason University, USCF School of Medicine, Charles Fried, University of Pittsburgh, Woodward Academy, University of Virginia Darden School of Business, Ross School of Business, Tuck School of Business, UC Berkeley College of Engineering, Cockrell School of Engineering, Texas A&M University College of Engineering, Grainger College of Engineering, Jacobs School of Engineering
USC Viterbi School of Engineering, UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science, Linda Melconian, Peter Y. Solmssen, Scott Mead, Richard Pipes, Willie E. Gary, Charles Duke, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yale University, Loyola Academy, Virginia Military Institute, Republican Party (United States), John McCain, Univeristy of Alaska Anchorage, Harvard College, Claudia Goldin, Nadine Strossen, University of Georgia, Lewis F. Powell Jr., William Lane Craig, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Vilnius University, New York Institute of Technology, Dumas Malone, John Hart Ely, Quintin Johnstone, Joshua Katz (classicist), Elizabeth L. Branch, University of Minnesota Law School, Yale School of Music, Ivy Club, Institut Le Rosey, University of Rochester, Gene Stone, Gary Born, Phyllis Ann Wallace, Las Lomas High School, Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Carnegie Mellon College of Engineering, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Université Paris Cité, Kathy Matsui Summerdays1 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
These aren't diffs. If they've really created issues at this many articles though, then surely multiple editors have reverted them and left them notes at their Talk page? Why hasn't this been escalated? DonIago (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Doniago, a couple points. Yes, they are a problem editor. This site doesn't catch everything. I don't have to be a PI to be able to show you how to use archaeological techniques. They shifted a few times in their course of editing on Wikipedia. Over a year ago they were not editing in this fashion. They have had a small number of people try to stop them. Summerdays1 (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
My understanding was that you were hoping that I'd intervene in some manner in either the content dispute at Nadine Strossen or the broader issues that may exist regarding GuardianH's behavior, but from your somewhat condescending response above it seems I was mistaken. In any event, the content dispute can and is being discussed at the article's Talk page, and the editor's behavior is being discussed at their Talk page, so I would recommend you engage in those discussions with your concerns. Good day. DonIago (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
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!
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!
Hello, I'm taking up the offer to comment on the reversion of my edit on the Robert Maschio page. I was actually aiming for more neutrality with the edit, but can zoom out and see how it seems intended differently. I took what I have perceived as a wiki-standard in my 20 years on the site, and thought I was upholding it.
Quite many wiki-articles, especially about actors, uses the phrase "mostly known for" when someone is primarly recognized for a single or barely handful roles. To state "is known for" seems a rather non-neutral judgment when an actor has had, albeit lesser known, more than one single speaking part during their career.
To write "is mostly known for" can be, for perspective, acknowledging the primary recognition while not outruling their other work. "Is known for" can arguably be deemed non-neutral as it boldly dismisses the credibility of other works.
In any case, I won't insist on my suggestion for this particular article. Going forward, now interested in editing this phrasing out of other articles and see if their is further concensus. Thanks for correcting me! Arcsoda (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Arcsoda, thanks for reaching out to me with your concern. I'm dealing with a pretty bad cold right now, so I hope this will make sense... "Mostly known" begs the question of, "according to whom?" and would probably require a source that's made that claim. "Known" is less problematic in that we're not really saying how many people know him for it or how well relative to his other works, just that he's known for it. Honestly, the ideal solution is probably to remove the "known" phrasing altogether. "He played X in Y" or such conveys the same meaning without getting into the intricacies of whether it's their preeminent claim to fame. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
