en User talk:Doniago Archive 65

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.

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

→

Please comment on Talk:Universal Monsters (2017 film series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Universal Monsters (2017 film series). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits for Predestination

Regarding your reversal of the edit for Predestination on List of films featuring time loops. Not sure why the RT reference is insufficient. A number of other entries in this table also reference RT. Do you have another suggestion for a reference or can you explain why the reference is insufficient and what it would need to include to be considered sufficient? The film definitely belongs in the list; it is one of the all-time classic closed-loop time travel stories. (See All You Zombies, which is the story on which the film is based, and the film follows the story quite closely.)

MichiHenning (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Following up on this, would this be considered a better reference? http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/predestination-2015

MichiHenning (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

RT is simply a review aggregator, and as such is not sufficient for demonstrating that movies really feature time loops. Most of the other sources I'm aware of being used in the list would serve as better examples. If other movies are being sourced to RT (and I'll take a look after leaving this comment), that should be addressed.

I'd say Roger Ebert is about as reliable as you can get for a source on film discussion. :)

Cheers! DonIago (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like RT wasn't generally used as a single source for inclusion, which was a good thing. I did find a single instance of that...removed RT and asked for a citation rather than outright removing. May be worth discussing at the list's Talk page? DonIago (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've put back the entry with the page on rogerebert.com as the reference. Please let me know if there are any other issues.

I spotted one RT reference while I was skimming the table, so I assumed that this was OK.

Me bad :-( MichiHenning (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries! It's an unfortunately common misunderstanding that in all cases a source simply demonstrating the existence of a disputed item is sufficient, when in many cases, such as for In Popular Culture items (see WP:IPCV) what's needed isn't a source that demonstrates existence, but one that demonstrates significance.

I'm now second-guessing my assertion that a Roger Ebert review will prove to be sufficient...but as I believe you're operating in good faith, and were following my original advice, I won't act further on this item. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:30 Rock

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:30 Rock. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2017 (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.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
483	Mental disorders in film (talk)	Add sources
2,347	Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (talk)	Add sources
133	Toughbook (talk)	Add sources
96	Deep Space Nine (fictional space station) (talk)	Add sources
29	Bidding war (talk)	Add sources
175	The Abominable Dr. Phibes (talk)	Add sources
86	Dagorhir (talk)	Cleanup
3,548	Nokia (talk)	Cleanup
43	Configurator (talk)	Cleanup
20	Ties of Blood and Water (talk)	Expand
103	Watchers (film) (talk)	Expand
556	Dell Latitude (talk)	Expand
131	Megaforce (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
238	Elim Garak (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
465	Gateway, Inc. (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,724	OPPO Electronics (talk)	Merge
231	Historical negationism (talk)	Merge
563	Seagate Technology (talk)	Merge
121	Ben Curtis (actor) (talk)	Wikify
18	Midnight on the Firing Line (talk)	Wikify
568	Selene (comics) (talk)	Wikify
7	Double Canfield (solitaire) (talk)	Orphan
4	Search for the Beast (talk)	Orphan
3	Asoke K. Talukder (talk)	Orphan
54	Shakespeare in Love (play) (talk)	Stub
4	Putzar (talk)	Stub
10	White Fang to the Rescue (talk)	Stub
169	Richard Rampton (talk)	Stub
22	Just in case (talk)	Stub
61	Fear City (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

References revisions

I do not understand why you undid my edit here. I see nothing that says the references section should be 30em width even with under 10 references. Its such a tiny amount of references even doing 2 columns probably isn't needed. - Galatz ^Talk 16:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Reflist#Columns discusses this in some detail and recommends 30em be used for multiple columns. If you believe a single column would be sufficient then you could remove the value altogether. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense than the MOS:FILM mentioned in your revert. - Galatz ^Talk 17:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, there was a discussion on the Talk page for MOS:FILM that mentioned the link I provided up above, but I acknowledge that it was a little unclear. DonIago (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange

It would not let me respond to you in the help desk so I'm going to do it here. I meant a new page because I can not find the info that I already know on here so I wanted to create a new page to help others but I don't know how. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any options for actually uploading an entire webpage here. As I noted at the Helpdesk, I'd have concerns that that would constitute a copyright violation. Might be worth waiting to see whether anyone else pipes up there though. If you meant creating a new Wikipedia article from scratch, as opposed to uploading, there's Wikipedia:Your first article. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much! That's really helpful! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad I could help! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Grazie again! The only thing I could edit so far is the Italian profanity page because the things I do know they don't have a page for it... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fabolous

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabolous. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

DRN Newsletter 1

Hello Doniago Thank you for volunteering at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The community appreciates your help. You are receiving this message to let you know of a couple of important changes at the noticeboard.

Announcements

Firstly, I, Yashovardhan Dhanania, have taken over as Coordinator for the term June 2017 - July 2017, taking over charge from Robert McClenon who finally gets a well deserved break after serving 3 continuous terms as the DRN coordinator!
The DRN conducted a Roll call in Late April which ended on 31 March, 2017. You must have received a talk page notification regarding the roll call. The list of volunteers has thus been updated and members who did not respond to the roll call have been removed. If you are receiving this notification, your name still exists on the volunteer list. As a result of the roll call, we are left with just 18 volunteers at the Volunteer list. If you feel you won't be able to actively assist at the noticeboard, please remove your name from the list.

Remember

You are reminded to regularly help in keeping the noticeboard up to date. The best way to do so is to watchlist the DRN page and regularly respond to new cases. You are also requested to watchlist the DRN Talk page and keep an eye there for important announcements, regular tips and other suggestions. You can also ask any doubts you have on the DRN Talk page itself.

You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the The dispute Resolution noticeboard. To stop receiving messages in the future, remove your name from The volunteer list.
Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Gant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Gant. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2017 (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.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
45	Babylon 4 (talk)	Add sources
18	A Voice in the Wilderness (Babylon 5) (talk)	Add sources
904	An American Werewolf in London (talk)	Add sources
14	There All the Honor Lies (talk)	Add sources
78	John Sheridan (Babylon 5) (talk)	Add sources
70	Delenn (talk)	Add sources
186	Scrabble variants (talk)	Cleanup
12	Roger Squires (talk)	Cleanup
1,393	R. L. Stine (talk)	Cleanup
1,386	Giuseppe Garibaldi (talk)	Expand
14	Ceremonies of Light and Dark (talk)	Expand
6	Outstanding elements of Babylon 5 (talk)	Expand
184	The New York Times crossword puzzle (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
628	New Hollywood (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
17	The Long Night (Babylon 5) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
66	Jumble (talk)	Merge
42	Games (magazine) (talk)	Merge
6	Raider Fighter (Babylon 5) (talk)	Merge
8	La Settimana Enigmistica (talk)	Wikify
318	Upselling (talk)	Wikify
187	Renewable Energy Certificate (United States) (talk)	Wikify
6	Pazurgo (talk)	Orphan
4	WebCrow (talk)	Orphan
3	Antoine Rivet de La Grange (talk)	Orphan
24	Más negro que la noche (2014 film) (talk)	Stub
12	Blacker Than the Night (talk)	Stub
15	Mirisch Films (talk)	Stub
23	Objects at Rest (talk)	Stub
65	West Los Angeles College (talk)	Stub
34	Lew Gallo (talk)	Stub

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) 12:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Haoliners Animation League

Hi Doniago. I see the following Discussion at Blackgaia02's Profile, because i about the following Edit of the User, and don't find any source in the internet which confirm this information. I'm more Active on the German Wikipedia, and don't know exactly how to act on the English Wikpedia. Because of this i want to ask you if it's ok when i revert his edit and add a note to your discussion with the user, or perhaps its better when you do it, because of more renown at the English Wikipedia? --Beleggrodion (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing the website provided below that information does not substantiate the information? If so, I would say you would be well within your rights to revert the edit and ask for a source, assuming you have a reasonable belief that the ownership information provided may not be verifiable (which seems accurate based on your post to me). Please let me know if you have additional concerns! DonIago (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Question - why are we conducting an RfC about changing an essay?

An editor was on the wrong side of consensus and started a RfC to block other editors from making changes to an essay. The essay claims adding only one citation after each sentence for a section is overkill. That is laughable. QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it might be overkill, but it depends on the sentence. Heh. DonIago (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not about adding multiple citations after each sentence. Just one citation after each sentence is not overkill. You can trust me on this. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I can't, because I think in many cases one citation after each paragraph may be sufficient. DonIago (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CITE is neutral and allows editorial discretion. But the essay discourages repeated citations. That's a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not a problem. It's an essay. If you don't like it, ignore it. DonIago (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Rather than ignore it, it can be improved. Are you against a more neutral essay giving editors more options for repeated citations? QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm against changing an essay without the approval of those who originally composed it, given that it is an opinion piece that is not necessarily intended to reflect consensus, just as I could submit an Op-Ed piece to CNN and it would not represent the view of CNN. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If we weren't talking about an opinion piece I'd be more inclined to do so. DonIago (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You have shown it needs to be improved becuase editors did argue on the talk page just like you are arguing. They were wasting my time like you are wasting my time. QuackGuru (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Happily, if you feel I'm wasting your time then you're under no obligation to continue this conversation. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hola

I haven't heard from you since May 25th at 2:08pm and since then I've come very far. My userpage has gotten better but doesn't reveal anything to much, I now welcome New editers I find 2 of which have awnsered back, and I have created a draft page called Draft:Dinah Liddell, I have also edited more than just the Italian profanity page. I stilk haven't edited much though. Anyway could you please take a look at it and tell me if I'm doing well? And if I have to much on my page tell me please don't delete it like others have. I worked so hard to find the UserBoxes and make them...Dinah Kirkland (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really have the time to review your work as you seem to be asking, but I'd invite you to consider joining the teahouse, which welcomes new editors with the intention of helping them become better at contributing here. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay Grazie! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2017 (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.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
134	Gunsway (talk)	Add sources
138	Wolfgang Reitherman (talk)	Add sources
481	Big Thunder Mountain Railroad (talk)	Add sources
130	Klaus Störtebeker (talk)	Add sources
2,017	Sentinelese (talk)	Add sources
82	Philip Henslowe (talk)	Add sources
408	Walt Disney Imagineering (talk)	Cleanup
44	Romiette and Julio (talk)	Cleanup
64	Gonks Go Beat (talk)	Cleanup
480	Shanghai Disneyland Park (talk)	Expand
925	The Aristocats (talk)	Expand
8	Diana Maggi (talk)	Expand
200	Main Street, U.S.A. (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
273	Walt Disney's Carousel of Progress (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
503	Juliet (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5	St. Joseph's Chapel (Rhinecliff, New York) (talk)	Merge
48	Robert April (talk)	Merge
1,227	Stereotype (talk)	Merge
28	Yusuf Khan and Sherbano (talk)	Wikify
183	Trekkie (talk)	Wikify
32	Fantasia (franchise) (talk)	Wikify
3	Elvira Santamaría (talk)	Orphan
2	Enrique Estrázulas (talk)	Orphan
4	Laura Canoura (talk)	Orphan
3	Wilcza Głowa coat of arms (talk)	Stub
160	Mara Hobel (talk)	Stub
3	Bulbophyllum falciferum (talk)	Stub
22	Alfredo Le Pera (talk)	Stub
4	Pouda (talk)	Stub
3	Falsodromius (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Black Cauldron

Following up on your response to my edit of The Black Cauldron (film), what would be an appropriate way to cite that? Because the film has never been released on Blu-ray, finding a specific source that even mentions the absence of a Blu-ray release is going to be difficult. It is a fairly well-known movie and one of the last of the Disney animated films that has not yet received a Blu-ray release, so I think that the lack of a BR is noteworthy, but it's so much harder to find a source that acknowledges the absence of something rather than the presence. 71.174.225.123 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Your own concern is why I don't think it's generally appropriate to include these kinds of negative-claim statements in articles. Per WP:V we do need a source that makes the claim, and I think it can be argued that if no source has made this claim then it probably isn't significant enough for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Catharism reversion?

Hi, you reverted my edit to Catharism. I had edited the "In Popular Culture" section to include the fact Iron Maiden wrote a song about the destruction of the Cathars.

You reverted it, calling it "Original Research". I'm kinda confused why? I'm new to editing Wiki so if you wouldn't mind explaining what I did wrong?

The literal lyrics of the song are:

"As we kill them all so God will know his own The innocents died for the Pope on his throne Catholic greed and its paranoid zeal Curse of the grail and the blood of the cross" [...] "Templar believers with blood on their hands Joined in the chorus to kill on demand Burned at the stake for their soul's liberty To stand with the Cathars, to die and be free"

The name "Cathars" is explicitely mentioned. So is their death at the hands of church authorities. So is the fact it was the Pope and the Catholic Church that had them destroyed.

So, what exactly is "original research" on my part? The lyrics are absolutely crystal clear: this song is about Catharism. So, shouldn't it have a place on the Wiki page for Catharism? Especially since there is already a "pop culture" section.

I'm not being angry, rude or disrespectful. I just want to improve this Wiki page with factual information that it is currently missing :)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.101.75 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for coming to me with your concerns, and I appreciate your civil tone!

It is somewhat original research to say that this is a song about the destruction of the Cathar movement. You're taking an excerpt from the song and making a claim about the entirety of it. What's needed is a reliable source that makes that claim.

More importantly though, because this is essentially an "In popular culture" item with reference to the Cathars, you need to provide a reliable source that establishes that this reference to Catharism is considered a significant one in some manner. This is discussed in more detail at WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see how the lyrics, that specifically mention "Cathars", "perfect ones", "The innocents died for the Pope on his throne", and "To stand with the Cathars, to ::die and be free" could possibly have any other meaning? They literally mention the name of the sect, there is no abstraction or symbolism, it's wholly literal. I'm not interpreting it beyond the literal meanings of the words.

I took a quick look at the page for Montségur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monts%C3%A9gur#Popular_culture) and it mentions this song too, and says it's "about the massacre of the Cathars." It also doesn't have a source, though I suppose you might want to strip that out too for the same reasons?

I appreciate requiring a source to prove things, that's what Wikipedia is of course! But when something is so literal, crystal clear cut and self evident, it can be counter productive surely? How can I find a source saying that a song that repeatedly mentioned "Cathars" is about "Cathars"? That's so obvious no one will bother mentioning it.

If I linked to the lyrics, filled with Cathar references, would that be good enough?

Appreciate your time in replying, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.101.75 (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again,

Firstly, please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) to the end of them. Helps with confirming who's saying what. :)

Secondly, all that those lyrics may establish is that that part of the song refers to the Cathars, so it's overreaching to claim that the song is about that, though that may just be a matter of phrasing. As far as whether a source is needed for this, I'd prefer to get the opinions of additional editors on that.

However, this still doesn't address my concerns about whether this constitutes a significant "In popular culture" item per WP:IPCV, and for that we definitely need a source. The side-benefit is that addressing that would likely moot my initial concern.

Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for pointing me to that other article. I've tagged the Pop Culture section because the sources provided are either unreliable or not third-party, and consequently doesn't establish the significance of the listed items...and as you noted, the Iron Maiden item is entirely unsourced. Hopefully, editors will be able to provide (better) sources. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong Garden (song)

Hi, Doniago, we're having a hard time coming to a consensus over at Talk:Hong Kong Garden (song). I'm not super familiar on how to resolve these conflicts peacefully. Any advice in following the proper process? Jikybebna (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm assuming this is in reference to the "History" section on that page? It looks to me like there hasn't been what could be considered a "thorough discussion" yet. I especially note that it looks like most of the contributors have only made a single post on the matter. Assuming there aren't guidelines or policies that you can rely upon to make a strong suggestion as to how you feel matters should proceed, I would suggest trying to form a compromise that may at least make everyone equally satisfied. See whether you can get people to agree on that, and if not, get some clarity on how they feel the situation should proceed; if nothing else, this will generate additional discussion on the matter. You may want to solicit additional opinions at WP:Songs, as the article falls under their area of interest.

If attempts to reach a consensus fail after everyone's talked on the subject a bit more, you may need to pursue dispute resolution. As there are more than two involved editors, getting a third opinion wouldn't be applicable, but an option such as the dispute resolution noticeboard may meet your needs.

At this time though, I still think you should generate more discussion on the matter before considering stronger options. Getting clear statements from everyone on how they feel on the matter, and what options they're open to pursuing with regards to the article would be a good first step (if this sounds like herding cats...well, sometimes it is...).

Hope this helps, and thanks for coming to me with your concerns! DonIago (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

SCA Kingdoms

My lord, I humbly apologize for my error and offer my gratitude for your repair thereof. In reading the article in the source edit view for purposes of copyediting, I noticed that links were missing to more than half of the Kingdoms. Selecting their names and clicking on the "link" icon, I saw "Page exists" in most cases, but neglected to look further. Had I done so, of course, I would have seen that they were merely redirects to the same page.

Methinks I will ask a technical question in the Teahouse: whether the effect of that action can show whether an existing page is actually merely a redirect to the same page.

In service, --Thnidu, s.n. Márkus of Bhakail (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's been quite some time since I was SCA-active (Shire of Mountain Freehold, East Kingdom), but I don't mind being addressed in such a manner. :)

No worries! It sounds to me like the source edit view may be considering a redirect page to still be an active page; I'm not familiar enough with the technical details to know whether there's anything that can be done about that, but it would be nice...

Cheers, and Happy Editing! DonIago (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't dream it's over

Hi Doniago... not sure if i should bring this up here or on the talk page of the article, forgive me on that one. But is it possible we could get "Don't dream it's over" semi-protected? There's constant vandalism by non registered users. If you would like me to bring this up on the talk page, or have any thoughts, please let me know. Cheers. MadMark80 (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You could request it at WP:RFPP and see how it plays out. Check the page history first to see whether you can really establish that the page being regularly vandalized is a trend, though. I haven't noticed it occurring frequently enough to make a point of asking...yet, anyhow. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me with some good info there. I feel that you're correct with what you say, probably not happening enough to make a point of asking just yet, so i will leave it for now and just continue to monitor the page. Thanks again! MadMark80 (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Titanic cost

With all due respect, you're being rather overzealous, if not outright bureaucratic. I consulted multiple inflation calculators; however, the URLs are fixed and don't allow you to link directly to a particular equation, or else I would have cited such. If nothing else, it's easily verifiable, unless you're simply looking to act in bad faith and not even willing to take IAR into account. KirkCliff2 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC) KirkCliff2 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: A quick look at your talk page suggests you are, indeed, a bureaucrat with a habit of unnecessary reversions. KirkCliff2 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC) KirkCliff2 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's easily verifiable then I don't know why you're coming here to leave a message bordering on the insulting when you could just provide a source, or, as I noted, use one of Wikipedia's inflation templates, and call it done. Good Day! DonIago (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)