User talk:Doniago/Archive 13
 | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Partial Recall
Eek, I guess that Total Recall thing was a bit slack of me. I misapplied a policy which I understood went for list articles: that one doesn't need to source when the same information is adequately sourced in the main article. But, it certainly wasn't a list article, and now that I look, I can't find that policy anyway.
I shall rectify forthwith. Just so you don't think ill of me. Sheavsey33 (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem! :) Thanks for fixing it! Doniago (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
21 Jump Street
Hi-
I saw your recent reversion of my reversion at 21 Jump Street. I'll admit I didn't pay close enough attention to the source (obviously, IMDB is not a reliable source); I just saw that an IP had blanked the entire Production section while claiming the show was filmed in New Orleans (he presumably was referring to the movie) and so reverted it. I see now that there's no justification for all the level of detail that had been provided. However, I'm not quite sure why you supported blanking the section entirely as opposed to just trimming the trivia and adding a citation needed tag. It's entirely verifiable that it was filmed in Vancouver (a couple of seconds of digging found this [1] and this [2]). I've done so now. Grandpallama (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think I meant to locate a source and got drawn away by other things. Sorry about that, glad to see it's been taken care of! Doniago (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Creating userboxes for Die Hard franchise and ER
Hey, there.
We will need to create userboxes for fans of the Die Hard franchise and The television series ER because of I'm fan both of them. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to help if I can, but it's not something I've ever done before. Doniago (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know how to do that either. Some of these cancelled shows and some movie franchises have userboxes, but not ER or the Die Hard franchise, which is why this is something that should created. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like Wikipedia:Userboxes would be your starting point... Happy to try to answer any questions or help out if I can, but you'd probably be better off hitting up an edtior who's got experience with them. Doniago (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know how to do that either. Some of these cancelled shows and some movie franchises have userboxes, but not ER or the Die Hard franchise, which is why this is something that should created. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
I should have come here earlier instead of cluttering up Edgar's talk page so let me just say thanks for you last post there and I too am sorry that we butted heads and apologies for any offense that I caused. Cheers and happy editing (whenever we get to do that!) MarnetteD | Talk 03:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sure Edgar enjoyed the Talk page-spam. :) Besides, I've learned to dread getting email notifications that my Talk page has been updated (and yet, oddly, I don't turn them off), heh. I figured you weren't -aiming- to cause any offense, or I would have called you out a bit more sharply, and lord knows it's all too easy here for one action or word to cause a spiral of miscommunication even among editors who generally get along well enough. I do still wish Jacobite had left at least one edit summary, moreso because they have a history of being a bit testy sometimes; hopefully if this recurs it will be more clear what's going on. As for editing...it's a nice idea, but it would get in the way of all my delightful Talk page conversations. ;) Cheers! Doniago (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
It is an undoubted fact that two well-known children's books used a similar literary device of children entering a magic wardrobe and getting into magical lands. You need no source for this fact except the two books themselves. I don't know if C.S.Lewis was influenced by Kastner or reinvented this device for himself, and I did not write any assertions about that. Noting the similarity between the two books is in my view quite legitimate and relevant information.Andreas Kaganov (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unless there's a link between LWW and the other book, it would seem off-topic to mention it in any capacity beyond "See Also", unless you can provide a reliable source that has also made the connection. If no such source is available this would seem to be trivial. If there is a source, you're welcome to re-add the information and source it accordingly. You're also welcome to discuss at the article's Talk page if you disagree with my assessment. Doniago (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
Hey! Just wanted to leave you a little something because you made me laugh with the Imp sign. I felt quite identified. Cheers FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
- Ooh baklava! Thanks! :) I wish I could take credit for coming up with the Imp myself, but yeah, certainly recognized my own editing patterns within the linked essay. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Oops...
In fixing your edit conflict, it looks like you inadvertantly dumped a whole lot of text. See [3]. You might want to go back and correct that. --Jayron32 19:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like someone got to it before I was aware. Man, I hate EC's... Thanks for the notification! Doniago (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Templates
What are maintenance templates?
--86.175.84.166 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Messages that call attention to problems with articles or portions of articles. WP:TC provides examples and discusses them in more detail. They generally should not be removed from an article unless the problem has been resolved, and when removing them it is good practice to provide an WP:Edit summary so that other editors know why you are removing the messgae. Doniago (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that you removed them from List of Christine characters unintentionally and have reinserted them. Please be more careful in the future. Doniago (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That was an accident
Talk:Armageddon (1998 film)#MC/RT scores
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Armageddon (1998 film)#MC/RT scores. Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Maint. Tag
I got your message about removing a maint. tag in the article on John Holmes, and if I did I must have had something accidentally higlighted and deleted it without realizing it. Since you know which tag it is, go ahead and put it back. I didn't realize that I had removed it, but I must have over highlighted what I was editing. Sorry about that. The Moody Blue (Talk) 21:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem! Pretty sure I already put it back in, but I'll double-check and reinsert if necessary. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "The Disney Afternoon". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supplies)
I reversed your removal of my addition of "Buck-Boost Transformer" to the section on Autotransformers. I changed "Buck-Boost Transformer" to a link to the WIKIPEDIA article.
Paulmmn (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC) --Paul E Musselman
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The content I added was ok!
I don't think the content needed to be deleted. I watched the film several times, and found out the information I added. The content I added should help! If you watch the film, you see earthquakes strike everywhere! UsefulWikipedia (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- As noted in the links I provided on your talk page and in the edit summary that I left while reverting, WP:FILMPLOT states that in general the plot summaries for movies should be 400-700 words long. The additions that you made brought the word count to over 1,000 words. If you feel your additions significantly increase a reader's understanding of the film you're welcome to discuss them at the Talk page for the article. Doniago (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted the content I added to the article for Outbreak. I watched the episode of the Pretender on Hulu and thought it would be an interesting piece of information for the article about the film. I took note of the way the virus was used in the episode, I cited the episode and linked back to the Wikipedia page that lists the episodes in Season 1 of the Pretender, and I even specified that it was a fake virus so it wouldn't be in-universe. What was the problem?24.59.131.149 (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because without a reliable source establishing a link between the two viruses, all you have is a possible coincidence. To say "Outbreak had Motaba, The Pretender had Motaba, they're the same thing" without a reliable source to back you up is synthesis. We can't assume that apparent references like these are intentional, rather we need a third-party source that says they are. Thanks for your understanding. Doniago (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was not aware that third party corroboration was required in all instances of comparison. Especially when the virus is the same in both the film and the episode:
- Film: fictional infectious agent called motaba {mo-tah-bah}; virus outbreak originally investigated in an African village. Classified as a Level IV pathogen and cause of a hemorrhagic fever comparable with ebola, only much more fast-acting. Original strain transmitted as a blood/fluid-borne pathogen only; B-strain is airborne.
- Episode: fictional infectious agent called motaba {mo-tah-bah}; introduced in the episode during an internal briefing at a virology lab, but the presentation shows pictures taken during an investigation in an African village. Dialogue in the episode specifically and clearly states that it is classified as a Level IV pathogen and cause of a hemorrhagic fever which is openly compared with ebola, and is specifically cited to be much more fast acting. The strain being analyzed by the lab in the episode is noted specifically as the B-strain and is described as being airborne, which causes the viewer to infer that the original strain was not.
- How exactly is it that firsthand observation of these parallels is worth nothing? Are they only valid if I found some source that says "well, while we were writing the episode we decided to use this fake virus that everyone would recognize from the Dustin Hoffman movie that came out a year ago"? You can go to Hulu and watch the gorram episode yourself if you don't believe me. Pretender, episode 1x07: A Virus Among Us
- You can thank me all you like; I don't understand. What more do you need to prove that the episode and the film are talking about the same thing when it's rather stupidly obvious to anyone who's seen both? 24.59.131.149 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:SYNTHESIS. Third-party sources are required to umambiguously establish, beyond what WP editors think, that there is a relationship between the two mentions. If there was a page for Motaba I might argue that this would be more approropriate for discussion there. We can't say "Something called Motaba showed up in A, and something called Motaba showed up in B; it's clearly the same thing." If this sounds crazy to you, subtitute 'John Doe' for 'Motaba'. We need proof that they're the same, not just evidence. Doniago (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you disagree with my feelings on the matter, you're of course welcome to discuss the situation at the Talk page for Outbreak. Other editors are more likely to offer opinions there than here. Doniago (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
in the firefly universe the humans have terraformed a new galaxy and not a new solar system i know they says its a new solar system in some of the time, but here's the thing a solar system is too small for a the alliance to have problems with keeping in order. The wiki page stats: "In the 26th century, humanity has left an overpopulated Earth and moved to a new solar system, colonizing many planets and moons. The Alliance has won a war with the less established planets of outer star systems". Outer star systems!!! so there is something wrong on that page anyways. And i know where the misunderstanding is from. it is from one of the version of the firefly tv show intro, the actor who played Shepherd Derrial Book(not 100% sure it was that actor) states that they terraformed a new star system, but in a another version of the intro the actor who played Malcolm Reynolds (again not 100% sure it was that actor) stated that they terraformed a new galaxy. When you think about it is the most logical thing, when you think about the huge number of planets and moons in the show and the distance between them. Again i know with our technology is a long distance between planets, but this the year 2517 (or something near that) we are talking about. We have probably discovered warp speed or something similar to it, if we can terraform planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.26.24.151 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Joss has said repeatedly that it was a solar system. And no... they never said in the intro they terraformed a new galaxy. I've rewatched the boxed dvds and my old recordings of the aired episodes multiple times. Didn't happen. Millahnna (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think that covers everything I'd have to say on the matter. Doniago (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Episode 4 Malcolm Reynolds said: "here's how it is: earth got used up, so we terraformed a whole new galaxy..." shepherd said(first in the episode: train job (ep2)): after the earth was used up, we found a new solar system and hundreds of new earth was terraformed and colniest. Well that is a huge solar system then, with hundreds of planets, when we have eight planets and only 4 of them is solid, we have dwarf planets but the temp is like -230 celsius on pluto and i don't think it is warmer on Ceres. we can in theory terraform planets like mars because it is very like the earth in many ways and the temp can be nice. and nicer if it got a earth like atmosphere. And i know the was talk about moons to, yeah the are many moons in our solar system jupiter have around 60 but only 4 that is any real size. and i also is talking about the wiki page of the movie: "In the 26th century, humanity has left an overpopulated Earth and moved to a new solar system, colonizing many planets and moons.The Alliance has won a war with the less established planets of outer star systems" those two lines in the plot summary is a contradiction. How can they have won wars on planets of outer star system if there are only one star system. joss is a really great director and writer, but he is saying two things in the television series, and again it is more logical that it is a galaxy rather than a star system. in fact it is more easier if he had said they moved out of the old star system and moved into new ones. like in the Ender's game series, where the colonised several star system to not be vulnerable to xenocide ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.26.24.151 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Our speculation as to what the creators might have intended or what would be more realistic is original research and consequently not relevant to the situation. It sounds like we have reliable sources that may contradict each other, in which case I'd tend to support whichever scenario is more strongly supported by the creators of the series/film. Doniago (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- When questioned about the impossibility/improbability of a single solar system having as many planets/moons as we saw in the show Joss said something to the effect of "please don't ask me about the science" and basically acknowledged that it probably wasn't very realistic. He also commented that he had it be only one solar system and no hyperspce/warp technology on purpose to up the stakes of the characters on the series. This all came from an interview he did just before the film came out that I can no longer find. Put another way, stop trying to apply real science to a fictional tv show. Millahnna (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- The "galaxy of earths" thing was hyperbole... because the alleged star system had so many worlds to settle. Millahnna (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
okey i give up, joss is not Gene Roddenberry, who made a world that made sense. if you look at the Serenity: The Official Visual Companion he writes what you have been saying. even if it makes no sense. and watch firefly on netflix there is the two prologues i been talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.26.24.151 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
One year ago!
You wrote something on my discussion side. I am sorry to answer only now. I am seldom here! Yours, --Bufi (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
IMDb as Reference
Hi. Thank you for letting me know IMDb was not a reliable reference - I did not realize that. I wlll not use again. Thanks again!--Fraulein451 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- No problem! You're hardly the first editor to make that mistake, and almost certainly won't be the last. Happy editing! Doniago (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Nov 2012
Thanks for your message on my talk page. Will keep that in mind....--Merlaysamuel : Speechify 16:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
ColecoVision
I added a bunch of citations to the ColecoVision page. Why were you worried about the small changes I made anyway, when there are lots of other things on that page that have no citations?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColecoAdam (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm quite worried about the other unsourced material on that page, and at some point I fully intend to address it...unfortunately that will probably involve a machete. For now I'd like to think an invested editor or two will come along and provide citations. Until then, thanks for adding refs! Doniago (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
From what I can see, it's time that this user be reported...despite the fact that his edits are sporadic. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:ANI may be in order. Looking at their contribution history I see little of merit...if they were contributing such edits more regularly they'd probably qualify for WP:AIV. Doniago (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking that he would have to be reported at WP:ANI as well. WP:AIV would likely consider the matter a content dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- My larger concern regarding bringing it up at WP:AIV is that they tend to focus on editors who are vandalizing a lot in a short amount of time, whereas Mr. Etches seems to be simply editing disruptivly (I'm not even sure they'd view it as vandalism) over a long-term. But yeah, I'd say ANI the guy...if you do, please link me to it as I'd like to see what develops. Doniago (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- ... that said, it looks like they may have gone dormant again. If that's the case, I'd suggest that any further warnings related to the type of problems they exhibited before be a level 3 or 4, explicitly mentioning the possibility of being blocked. They've got enough warnings, and they're not an IP, that I think we're past AGF. Doniago (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- When you state "link to you," do you mean specifically mention you? Either way, considering the warnings you left on the user's talk page, they'd know that you're involved. I understand what you mean about another warning, a higher-level warning template, before reporting him; that means waiting until he acts up again, though. Flyer22 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I meant leave me a note here pointing to the discussion, as I'd like to be able to see how it progresses and chime in if necessary. :) I don't see any reason to specifically mention me so much as the fact that they've received numerous warnings for non-constructive editing and it hasn't helped. That said...while subjectively their edits are annoying, objectively they're easily-reverted and are occurring infrequently and in small quantities, which makes it harder to make a good case for blocking them in general. If they get a level 4 next time though, which seems warranted based on their prior actions, then we only need to wait one more time before we arguably have valid grounds for reporting them. Sure it may be a long wait, but if they're not editing in the interim, it's not really a problem, right? And blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Doniago (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I misread; I read "link me to it" as "link to me." And, yes, I agree with the rest of what you stated. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I meant leave me a note here pointing to the discussion, as I'd like to be able to see how it progresses and chime in if necessary. :) I don't see any reason to specifically mention me so much as the fact that they've received numerous warnings for non-constructive editing and it hasn't helped. That said...while subjectively their edits are annoying, objectively they're easily-reverted and are occurring infrequently and in small quantities, which makes it harder to make a good case for blocking them in general. If they get a level 4 next time though, which seems warranted based on their prior actions, then we only need to wait one more time before we arguably have valid grounds for reporting them. Sure it may be a long wait, but if they're not editing in the interim, it's not really a problem, right? And blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Doniago (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- When you state "link to you," do you mean specifically mention you? Either way, considering the warnings you left on the user's talk page, they'd know that you're involved. I understand what you mean about another warning, a higher-level warning template, before reporting him; that means waiting until he acts up again, though. Flyer22 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- ... that said, it looks like they may have gone dormant again. If that's the case, I'd suggest that any further warnings related to the type of problems they exhibited before be a level 3 or 4, explicitly mentioning the possibility of being blocked. They've got enough warnings, and they're not an IP, that I think we're past AGF. Doniago (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- My larger concern regarding bringing it up at WP:AIV is that they tend to focus on editors who are vandalizing a lot in a short amount of time, whereas Mr. Etches seems to be simply editing disruptivly (I'm not even sure they'd view it as vandalism) over a long-term. But yeah, I'd say ANI the guy...if you do, please link me to it as I'd like to see what develops. Doniago (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking that he would have to be reported at WP:ANI as well. WP:AIV would likely consider the matter a content dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)