User talk:Doniago

Sing Sing

Hi there, thanks for your message. I hope this is the proper way to respond to it.

You ended up deleting my edit to the "In pop culture" section to this page, asking for a source that demonstrates the significance of the item. I understand that you don't want to clutter up the page with a list of indiscriminate references. However, all the references in that section do not have any such sources. Therefore, to be fair, if you are going to delete my edit shouldn't you also delete all the listed items in that section?

It seems that the determination as to what is a trivial reference or not is entirely subjective anyway.

Thanks for your response in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisiello2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paisiello, thanks for coming to me with your concerns. In general it is probably best to express concerns at the article's Talk page, as that way other editors can also offer their opinions, but this is fine.

You make a valid point regarding the fact that other items listed have no sourcing establishing their significance. However, looking at the article, I see that section was tagged with a warning specifically advising editors to address this problem. Additionally, the presence of problematic items is not a valid reason to add further problematic items...see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As the warning was added to the article in August, not objectively that long ago, I suspect an editor will take steps to resolve it within the next couple of months; in any case, this isn't the time to add additional unsourced items. I removed them immediately because the contributor was identifiable and I could let them know directly; otherwise the items would likely either be sourced or removed en masse whenever I or another editor deal with the existing problem.

What makes an item a trivial reference is not subjective; triviality is established by the presence or absence of a third-party reliable source that discusses the item. If there are questions about whether the provided sourcing is sufficient, there are channels for discussing that, beginning with the article's Talk page.

I hope this sufficiently addresses your concerns. Thanks for coming to me. Doniago (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

JetBlue

The reason why I did not provide a source was because there was not an article or release from the company stating it. I knew the information first hand, which is why I posted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewhoya (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:VERIFY. All information published in Wikipedia should be reliably sourced. Wikipedia editors are not in and of themselves reliable sources. Sorry. Doniago (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked back at what I had put.... And the reason why I didn't add an article was because the link where I got my information was already listed as a source. There is no reason to double up in that scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewhoya (talk • contribs) 10:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the source attached to the sentence you modified, and it did not support your modifications. In that case, the source provided may need to be updated. Doniago (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I flew on those JetBlue planes. I'm not sure what's needs modifications on it though. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this thread is being resurrected, but I think the issue was that Andrew was changing the number of planes, or something, to a number which was not stated by the source provided at the time. Doniago (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (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!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Secret Mountain Fort Awesome			Bedrock Anthem
	Knock Me Down			Lindsay Pulsipher
	Peekamoose Mountain			All Star (song)
	Martha Wentworth		Merge
	Uinta National Forest			Mr. Jelly and the Pirates
	Balsam Cap			Blood Sugar Sex Magik
	The Very Best of Men Without Hats			Emma Spool
	Table Mountain (New York)		Add sources
	Straw dog			Red Sonja (film)
	Alan Poul			Wilson Cruz
	Sergei Stepanov			Tangled
	MysteryQuest		Wikify
	Alethea McGrath			Donovan discography
	Walter Seltzer			Family dispute resolution
	Lincoln Kilpatrick			A History of Soviet Russia
	Ellie Herman		Expand
	Tyler Posey			Hot Water (American Dad!)
	Jean Del Val			The Official Album of the Disneyland Resort
	Troy and Boston Railroad			Matt Frewer

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) 00:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Animal Farm in popular culture

I suggest you read wp:notability which says explicitly: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Given that blue links only link to subjects which themselves meet the notability criterion, all items in that article pass the test. Your protestations do not override this policy for reliably published verifiable primary sources. The next step is ANI. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I have to laugh at the irony of you giving me a warning for this sort of thing. Go ahead and take it to ANI given that you're the one ignoring consensus on the article's Talk page and refusing to collaborate in the discussion of list criteria that the article requires per WP:LSC. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Doniago. You have new messages at Edgarde's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Doniago. You have new messages at NebY's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NebY (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot vs. Summary

Please don't engage a revert war. Discuss your opinion in Talk:Back_to_the_Future instead of deciding for everyone. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is there to discuss? Per MOS:FILM the correct section title is "Plot". Doniago (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, apparently there is something to discuss given the pre-existing conversation there. That page wasn't on my watchlist and I was unaware that the issue was considered this contentious. In any case I've made my opinion that the article should adhere to MOS standards clear there, and if we're going to make an exception (for no outstanding reason that I'm aware of) then a discussion at the MOS's Talk page may be more appropriate than at a film-specific Talk page. Doniago (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that I was not a contributor to the film article that you specifically cited, it strikes me as somewhat inappropriate that you appear to suggest I am engaging in an edit war on said article. If the discussion there is (as I assume) pertinent to other film articles, then I hope the Talk pages for those articles are referencing the BttF Talk page for reference. If not, then I'm not sure why you brought this up to me in the first place. In any case, discussions intended to apply to multiple articles should generally not occur on the Talk page for a specific article; a project page or such would be a more appropriate location. That being the case, you may wish to notify relevant project pages that there is a discussion in-progress, if you consider this issue of particular concern. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the fact that we had a discussion going regarding the name of the header and you changed it without even trying to state your opinion in the discussion. To me, well, that was kind of rude. I was not aware that you weren't subscribed to this BTTF talk page, so that explains it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't exactly state my opinion in a discussion I wasn't aware existed, no. (smile) I've worked on BttF3, but have never touched the pages for the other two films and consequently don't watch them, so being referred to a discussion on the first film's page, especially with a suggestion that I was edit-warring...a little irregular. For what it's worth though, we actually seem to feel the same way about the underlying topic. Next time my suggestion would be something more along the lines of, "I noticed you've been reverting changes to x...please be aware that there's a discussion regarding those types of changes at y. Until that discussion reaches a consensus, please refrain from making additional changes. Thanks!" More AGF'y, and makes it clear that while the discussion wouldn't appear to involve the page being worked on, the topic relates to it. Anyway, I'm dealing with a bad case of con crud right now, so coherence isn't my strong suit, but I'm glad we cleared this up and that we seem to be on the same page now...no pun intended. Doniago (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Admin Help Requested - Conflict getting out of hand

{{admin help}} Could someone please take a look at this and deal with it in an appropriate manner? There's a conflict that seems to be escalating and I'd really like to see it get defused before things go any further. Generally I'd issue a warning (or two) myself, but I was really hoping things could be resolved peacefully. Thanks for the assist. Doniago (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have started a walk out - two more editors have declared out. Sadly, there's sometimes a stage in a debate that further debate serves no purpose - we even have a page for it - WP:STICK. Maybe you have just picked the correct time to withdraw. Not sure there's much we can do, we can always slap everyone with WP:CIVIL warnings - it might just wind them up some more. I'll leave up the help, maybe someone else will have a different view.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't blame the others for walking out..I just hope they're only leaving the specific discussion and not WP itself. For better or worse, the whole thing ended up exploding on ANI in any case, though oddly my original concern, which was that my help request had gone unacknowledged for over 12 hours, fell by the wayside in favor of other matters. Anyway, thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad someone did. Doniago (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm removing the adminhelp - incidents like this need to be reported to WP:ANI as they happen for (usually) faster service. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case I think the template may need to be tweaked (which was my original reason for going to ANI despite how far afield the ensuing conversation wandered). The template message provided strongly implies that a response will be "swiftly forthcoming". Doniago (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"anyone cares enough"

Regarding this comment, the page is open to anyone to edit. You left some stuff on the talkpage, which frankly isn't great stuff, but could have been added to the article. Going around tagging and saying no cares about pages is ludicrous when we have millions of articles and about 100 people actually writing content. As far as I know I'm one of the only editors to write about children's literature, and no I don't like the book, but that's immaterial - when it was published it was hugely successful, as much so as Harry Potter so it's an important page. As for finding information about it, it's not easily found with a google search. It involves going to the library, finding the books, and in some cases ordering them through ILL. And then the books need to be read, the information synthesized and added to the article. All of this takes time. I welcome having you do it as I work full-time and have lots of other wiki commitments at the moment. If you don't want to, that's fine too, but don't say "oh well no one's done anything, so no one cares and sources don't exist anyway". None of that is true. In my view tagging a page achieves nothing. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:BURDEN. Information should not be added to articles if reliable sourcing cannot be provided. In this case the information was part of the article, which had been tagged since 2007 for needing sourcing. After over three years, it seems reasonable to move the information to the Talk page until such time as sourcing can be found to substantiate it and satisfy the verifiability requirement. As the information is on the Talk page and has not been deleted, interested editors have the opportunity to find appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at the contribution history of the page and go through the history. I never ever added any content. I intend to add content but as I'm trying to explain, it will take time, as in time finding sources, reading them, and writing the content. In the meantime, the existing content can and has been sourced with about 20 minutes work - so again, why the tag? I know perfectly well what V stands for, so no need to link. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether the above comment stands in light of the note I left at the article's Talk page? Doniago (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You asked me here to review burden as though I'd added unsourced material to the page. I'm responding to that. As for the comment on the talkpage - there's no need to thank for 20 minutes of work that was easily done. I took down the tag because I knew it could be done easily. Within seconds the tag was back and then on the talkpage you say that it's okay to tag a page because, in your mind, some other person exists who is better qualified to write about the material, so instead tagging and running is a fine option, leaving the real burden on that other imaginary person to improve the page. What I did anyone could have done with a little time and thought - what I haven't done at all is actually improve the page. All I did was bring it to a place to keep from edit warring over a tag, which to me is counterproductive, but there we are. I'll leave you alone now. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Andre Agassi

Hello may I please ask why my edit on Andre Agassi was edited? Although a bit expicit,I feet it is necessary to explain how a woman gave birth just four days after she got married. and also that a second child was born to the couple after they got married.PACB (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided proper sourcing for the information you are inserting. That being said, isn't it kind of obvious that if she gave birth 4 days after she got married then she must have had sex prior to the marriage? Doniago (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well Doniago.... you just said it!!! it is obvious that they had sex prior to the marriage? so what is the need for sourcing. Besides I dont think any source would contain such obvious(and explicit)things. Hence I will be unable to provide any source or reference to my edit. :) :) :) PACB (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but if it's obvious, then why bother saying it. And since this is a WP:BLP, verifiability is an especially important thing to keep in mind. If there isn't a source that states this information explicitly (no pun intended), we shouldn't say it either. Doniago (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you reinserted the information without adding a source. That isn't appropriate, especially not for a BLP. If you really feel this information needs to be in the article, please start a discussion at the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I read the changes that PACB wrote. IMHO it certainly makes the article worse by adding unnecessary and obvious information. If something is added to an article page and it is deleted, bring it to the talk page so others (by consensus) can help determine if it makes for a better read. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the article's Talk page PACB (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Join WP:ROALD!

Hello, Doniago, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can jin!

-- We hope you can join MayhemMario 17:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation! I'm not clear on what I might have to offer, but I'll be happy to do what I can to help! Doniago (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be great- thanks a lot!!!! Add your name here. MayhemMario 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Voice

Response to your removal of my edit to Google Voice and the comment you left me:

Thanks for providing the information about verifiability. I'm new at Wikipedia editing, so I need all the help I can get. (and I did just read the pages about verifiability and no original research.) I believe I have found a suitable citation, but before I try editing the page again, please advise on whether it would be acceptable to cite this page from the official Google support site: http://www.google.com/support/voice/bin/answer.py?answer=115110&topic=19490

The relevant material is the third paragraph.

Finally, please accept my apologies if this is the wrong way to respond to you. It seems like a strange way to have a conversation. Tangiblethree (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)tangiblethree

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! A couple of FYI's-

1. It's usually best to start a new thread at the very bottom of someone's talk page. If you don't see a tab at the top of their page that you can use to insert a section, you can insert a header as so- ==Section Name==. Makes the organization easier and all. :)
2. If your concerns are regarding changes to a particular article, you may wish to start the discussion at the article's Talk page rather than that of the editor in question. That makes the conversation more "public" so that other editors can also offer any feedback.

I'm by no means an expert on sourcing, but if the link you provided is information provided by Google in an official capacity (as opposed to, say, a forum post by a random user), than I think it should work. If not I'm sure someone will speak up eventually. (smile)

Hope this helps, and thank you for being so polite in your message! We were all new at some point. :) Doniago (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (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!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Ken Harris			Beauty and the Beast (1991 film)
	Crazy Frog Presents More Crazy Hits			Dwight Schrute
	East Coast – West Coast hip hop rivalry			Jamie Waylett
	Jamie Harris (actor)		Merge
	Seriously Weird			Nuclear deterrent
	Schroon River			List of films about computers
	Edward Harris (ornithologist)			Norma Bates (Psycho)
	Searchlight Rag		Add sources
	Del Harris (squash player)			Asael Bielski
	Heyday Films			Wild About Harry
	Rospo Pallenberg			Crazy Harry
	A Gun Fightin' Gentleman		Wikify
	Paul Harris (author)			Hunters Quay
	The Return of the Son of Monster Magnet			Swan Song (novel)
	Thomas Harris (politician)			David Oliver (ice hockey)
	Harry Harris (director)		Expand
	Music of the Harry Potter films			Eating
	Mount Hercules			Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey
	Moving Pictures (TV series)			Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (video game)

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) 12:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!!!!!!

Hello, Doniago, and Welcome to the Roald Dahl task force. Go to the To-Do list of this task force to see the list of open tasks. I hope that you enjoy being part of this project. Also if you have not already, add your name to the participants list to add your name. Again welcome!

-From MayhemMario 18:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Doniago (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Iaudio article sources

Hello, and thanks for your comment! I added references for the D3's latest firmware and the screen size statement as best I could - feel free to review or edit them, or remove the sentences altogether if you for some reason find them redundant. One of these references is a link to Wikipedia itself, and I have a sneaking suspicion that might be against the policy. I have done some minor-ish other changes to the article since then, so if you decide any of my edits are unwanted, please remove them individually without reverting the entire article back to a previous stage. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.6.40 (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed against policy to use a wikilink as a source, sorry. I'll try to remember to look over the changes and let you know what I think, but I'm kind of brain-dead right now. If you don't hear anything from me but would like to, please poke me here! Thanks for your interest in improving the article! Doniago (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, I'm writing to you, because you left this comment [1] in an earlier discussion, in which we participated. I didn't have time then, to continue that discussion. Also I don't want to continue with advancing my own arguments, instead I ask you to read this quote from the banning policy. I believe it's relevant to that earlier discussion about alleged "positive" or "good" editing. (from WP:BAN) Hobartimus (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bans apply to all editing, good or bad

Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.^[3]

My concern on the original discussion was that it seemed you might be advocating a position that once an editor has been banned all edits they have made previously should be subject to reversion regardless of how constructive they are. My own opinion, which does not seem to be contradicted by the above policy, is that no contributions should be accepted from a banned editor going forward, but prior contributions should only be reverted if they are not constructive (then again, I tend to believe any non-constructive edits should usually be reverted). The policy you cite above does not seem to apply retroactively. Doniago (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your opinion. Can you take a look at the actual case that prompted this discussion? they were these edits (merged into one) by an editor named Berchea. Do you believe the policy applies to them? The dispute arose because I undid these edits by the account Berchea. Hobartimus (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The edits themselves don't appear innately harmful. Information added is cited. With my non-existent knowledge of the subject I wouldn't touch them personally. I guess the questions I would have then are whether a blocked user is equivalent to a banned user, and whether the user was effectively blocked/banned prior to the additions you linked me to. Given my limited investment in the situation I'm admittedly not inclined to answer these questions on my own initiative. Doniago (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the time to reply. Hobartimus (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2011 (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!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Ken Harris			Jamie Waylett
	A Liar's Autobiography			Hourglass (Clannad song)
	Colorado Shakespeare Festival			Scientific racism
	Jamie Harris (actor)		Merge
	Ceryx			Cowon America
	Three Mounted Men			List of Happy Tree Friends episodes
	AppStream			Tim Taylor (character)
	Trinity (My Dying Bride album)		Add sources
	A Wonder-Book for Girls and Boys			Lessons (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
	Rospo Pallenberg			List of Harry Potter related topics
	Heyday Films			The Quality of Life (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
	Theodore R. Kupferman		Wikify
	Mark Zandi			Mehdi Mahdloo
	Harry Harris (director)			Love Does Grow on Trees (short film)
	Yateras			List of 07 Ghost characters
	Edward Harris (ornithologist)		Expand
	The Big Show (TV series)			Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey
	Del Harris (squash player)			American Son (comics)
	Bruno Nicolai			Yokohama

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) 14:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

*A Separate Peace* deletion

I thought your recent deletion of the “Gene Hated Finny” subsection on the A Separate Peace article talk page was rather selective. If the three posts on this section were forum notes (in your estimation), then what do you call the entire section on a (strictly perceived) homosexual subtext to the novel, even dragging Robert Graves into it? Both sections discuss character motivation and if you deleted the one then to be consistent you should delete the other as well. I believe more leeway should be extended to talk pages than to edits within articles themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that section is also inappropriate per WP:NOTFORUM you are welcome to delete it as well. My deletion of one section is by no means a tacit endorsement of any other section. Talk page conversations should relate to improving the article; if they do not do so, they should be removed per the linked policy. Doniago (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Your response still doesn’t explain why you thought this section violates the relevant rule while the one I mentioned does not. Discussing whether there is a homosexual subtext to the novel is no different, in my opinion, than discussing the subtext of the polar opposite relationship between the two main characters, and discussing the nature of such relationships. A quid pro quo on my part of deleting the other section would not be appropriate as my quid would not be directed against the appropriate quo; furthermore, I don’t believe the other section should be deleted. By your deleting one while allowing the other to remain constitutes unwarranted subjective favoritism. Both discussions can lead to improving the article by way of character interpretation. If you fail to revert your deletion or provide an explanation for the perceived inconsistency, then I shall revert. I too believe in civility, so we can civilly take the matter to an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section in question because it did not clearly have anything to do with improving the article itself. I did not review the Talk page entire, nor am I required to, nor does my deletion reflect on anything on the Talk page beyond the conversation that I in fact deleted. If you want to restore my deletion go right ahead; frankly I'm not that invested in the subject matter, though apparently you are as you contributed to a discussion that was several years old. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonableness on this issue. Yes, I do feel strongly about the point as the book is a classic that impressed me as a youth and has remained with me ever since. If we should ever disagree again, in that same spirit of reasonableness I shall defer to you regardless of how strongly I might feel about the issue. That is a promise. I thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I know this is going to seem exceedingly odd, but upon dwelling on our disagreement, I have decided that you were correct after all. Therefore, I have reversed my revert of your deletion and there might matters please rest. I’m sorry for the waste of time, but what’s right is right. Now, I shall take no more of your time. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)