W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Lumaag

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.


<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->

Welcome!


thumb|alt=A plate of chocolate chip cookies.|Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''' ↗ ↗
Hello, Lumaag, and '''''welcome to Wikipedia ↗'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the '''Wikipedia Teahouse ↗'''.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please sign your name ↗ on talk pages ↗ using four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our '''help pages''' ↗, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!<!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --> —<b><span style="color:navy">Stewpot</span></b> (<small><span style="color:Indigo">Talk</span></small> • <small><span style="color:Indigo">contribs</span></small> ↗) 23:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

:Thank you very much for the warm welcome.
:Lumaag (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Citing reliable sources



Please read WP:RS ↗ for details on reliable sources. IMDb ↗ is not a reliable source. Please do not cite IMDb in article. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank for this. I will fix.
:Lumaag (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Lumaag
::Please also review WP:PRIMARY ↗ and WP:OR ↗. You cannot directly cite a TV episode like this ↗ or this ↗. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black"><b><span style="color: #000000;">Tkbrett</span></b><span style="color: #FF0000;"> (✉)</span></span> 20:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you for this. But I do not understand: This is a citation to a statement on the website of the network which aired the episode. Surely, this is considered a reliable primary source and be acceptable? I have seen similar citations to the BBC when references are made to episodes which aired on that network. For example, see note 55 in Lucy Worsley: BBC Two – Queen Victoria: My Musical Britain". BBC. Retrieved 17 May 2019. Or is the answer to simply omit such references, as I have also regularly seen.
:::I would ''very much'' appreciate it if you were to give me an example of what would be an acceptable source, so I can correct this. Sincere thanks. Lumaag (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:Category:Films with fictional attacks on public transport ↗ has been nominated for deletion



<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>:Category:Films with fictional attacks on public transport ↗ has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization ↗ guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''the category's entry ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">soetermans</span>. <sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A <span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''TALK'''</span></sup> 16:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Categories



Please stop adding both subcategories and their parent categories. Unless the parent category is non-diffusing ↗, there's no need to list both. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. I will look into this. Lumaag (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::Ok, I see now. Thank you. Lumaag (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:::You evidently don't see, as I just had to revert one of your edits where you did so again. DonIago (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I really thought I had. I cannot easily see what you reverted. Can you please identify it for me? Lumaag (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Is it "Manhattan" instead of "New York City" in Trading Places? If so, then should I have deleted the New York City Category? Is that allowed/encouraged? Manhattan is the more specific Category. Lumaag (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, when you added Manhattan you should have deleted NYC: alternately, you could have just changed the category from NYC to Manhattan. Unless a category is non-diffusing, always favor the more specific category as long as it remains accurate and appropriate. DonIago (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::''Thank you'' for that explanation. Again, I have learned something from you.
::::::Another question, if there is a film which has been shot in, say, <u>both</u> Georgia <u>and</u> Atlanta, both Categories should be included, I expect. But Atlanta would not be a subcategory. Should that be noted in a Talk page? Lumaag (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm a little confused by the question; are you hypothesizing a film having been shot in Atlanta (in Georgia) but also in other parts of Georgia? If so, then I'm not an expert at handling this, but I think it might be best to leave the more encompassing Georgia category in place rather than adding the Atlanta category, which may just confuse anyone looking at the categories and wondering why a subcategory and its parent are listed. WP:OVERCAT ↗ doesn't exactly cover this, but it does discuss the notion that if an article belongs in both category A and related category B that it's best to try to avoid overlap. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::::OK...If I were looking to see which films were shot in Atlanta, I would not necessarily think the broader Shot in Georgia Category would be what I was looking for. Or where I would look, given that there IS a Shot in Atlanta Category. Or Shot in Germany and Shot in Berlin. It seems that both Categories should be included (if there were scenes shot in Berlin and other scenes shot elsewhere in Germany), since that is what is accurate. It is why I thought that perhaps one could avoid the confusion by being upfront with a Talk entry about it, or perhaps saying so in the Edit box. What I want to avoid is annoying people (including you) by doing so when I am only trying to be accurate. Lumaag (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::That's what non-diffusing categories are intended to address, but there's nothing at, for instance, :Category:Films shot in Georgia (U.S. state) ↗ to indicate that it's intended to be non-diffusing. Might be a discussion to have at the Talk page for the category. And again, I'm not an expert on a scenario like this; my opinion may not reflect consensus regarding how such a scenario should be handled. DonIago (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::and, again thank you!
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 150px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Cookies!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |

Lumaag has given you some cookie ↗s! Cookies promote WikiLove ↗ and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.



To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{tls|Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{tls|munch}}!
|} Lumaag (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

February 2025



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Before adding a category to an article, as you did to :Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) ↗, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines ↗. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable ↗ content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-badcat --> Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:With respect, chess plays a crucial role in this film. Chess playing is shown twice and is mentioned a third time (in the award of the crucial House points). This may be contrasted with unicorns which appear only once but which have been left as a Category. Moreover, one cannot imagine the plot without chess (while unicorns could be removed and the story left virtually intact). I think therefore that this Category is appropriate for this film. Please restore the change I made. Thank you. Lumaag (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::Disagree, chess is a plot point, but it is only one of many, and as per my edit summary - it is not a ''defining aspect'' of the film. This is a film that includes a couple of games of chess, the film is not ''about'' chess. The film features an extended sequence of trains and train stations, but we don't include it a trains category - because the film isn't ''about'' trains. Unicorns are an essential plot point because it is unicorn blood that sustains Voldemort.
::Still, if you feel that strongly about it, please feel free to bring it up as a change request on the talk page - others may agree with you, and that's how consensus is gained. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I defer to your judgment. Lumaag (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Eliza Mahoney ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have looked carefully at the source code and not found a problem. Lumaag (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright



30px|link=|alt=Control copyright icon ↗ Hello Lumaag! Your additions to :Weeksville Heritage Center ↗ have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted ↗ content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain ↗ or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible ↗ copyright license. (''To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission ↗''.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright ↗ and plagiarism ↗ issues. Here are the key points:
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked ↗ from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-copyright-new --> Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. I understand copyright restrictions (I think). I know not to just "take" language and therefore had rewritten (I think!) the texts which were deleted. Can you please give me some detail as to why you think the text removed was copyrighted? In that way, I can learn, too. Thank you. Lumaag (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
::The best way for you to view the overlap is to have a look at the iThenticate report. Plase go to the CopyPatrol report ↗. Log in to CopyPatrol (upper right corner), and the iThenticate link will be revealed. Click on that, and you will be asked to agree with Turnitin's terms of service, and then the comparison report will load. The reports sometimes are slow to load. Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
:::That's fascinating. I thought I had made sufficient changes by paraphrasing and changing. I can now see the issues. Thank you for this. (I did not know one could see such reports.) Lumaag (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::::The people at Turnitin have kindly donated the use of their tool to Wikipedia to help us with our copyright cleanup efforts. The system was originally designed for professors and other educators to help them with assessing term papers and the like. Diannaa (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::Is there a way to use this tool PROactively? I do not want (and never wanted) to have copyright issues. Is there a way to submit text and see if it passes (whatever that is)? I appreciate your guidance. Lumaag (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::There is not, not for this tool. There may be options available online. Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Always cite sources



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Flibirigit. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, :John Ross Robertson ↗, but you didn't provide a reliable source ↗. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation ↗ and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners ↗. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> Flibirigit (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hello! I have added the text back with an IMDb source. I also note that Wikipedia already contains the actor information at List of ''Murdoch Mysteries'' characters#Other historical figures. I hope this is to your satisfaction. Otherwise, please let me know. Lumaag (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
::FWIW, IMDb generally isn't considered a reliable source ↗. I'd highly encourage you to provide an alternate source if possible, though I can't speak for how other editors might react. DonIago (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
:::I can happily make a substantive response to your point, but first please can you tell me: how do you know what I put into a reference of an edit? Lumaag (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
::::You said yourself that you "added the text back with an IMDb source". DonIago (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but that was in reply to User:Flibirigit. Then you replied. Are you also User:Flibirigit? Lumaag (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::In reply to the IMDb point:
:::The concern is about reliability. I am not addressing general reliability but rather concerning the names of people who are part of the cast and crew.
:::1.
:::I would point to Wikipedia’s own entry on the subject IMDb#Features ↗:
:::
:::The title and talent pages of IMDb are accessible to all users, but <u>only registered and logged-in users can submit new material and suggest edits to existing entries</u>. Most of the site's data has been provided by these volunteers. <u>Registered users with a proven track record</u> are able to add and make corrections to <u>cast lists</u>, <u>credits</u>, and some other data points. However, the addition and removal of images, and <u>alterations to titles, cast and crew names</u>, character names, and plot summaries are <u>subject to an approval process</u>; this usually takes between 24 and 72 hours.
:::
:::One can see from this that only reliable users can enter cast lists and credits and that any change to such information requires approval.
:::
:::That demonstrates reliability, through vetting and supervision.
:::
:::2.
:::When it comes to minor characters and lesser-known cast members and crew, there is no incentive to upload inaccurate information. Moreover, if inaccurate information were to be provided, especially for such less “famous” people, it would be important to them that the correct information be there. It is reasonable to expect that their agent and the affected person would promptly inform IMDb, so that proper credit would be made.
:::
:::3.
:::When it comes to TV shows in particular, there is very little other information available. The producer/distributor will have information about the show, listing the main actors, and normally will have information about individual episodes. But it is extremely unusual to find information about minor characters, unless they are recurring. There may be information on the person’s own website, but, as far as I can see from looking around, very few such people maintain a website. TVmaze (https://www.tvmaze.com/) has detailed information, but it is a less well moderated community-based site. Therefore, IMDb is really (in almost all instances) the only source for non-main cast and for crew, etc. Lumaag (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::::I concur that IMDb is not a reliable source. If nothing more reliable is found, the information is not encyclopedic at this time. Flibirigit (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::There are 100's (tat I have seen), perhaps 1000's, of IMDb entries found across Wikipedia. Evidently, other editors do not share this view. WHY do you think it is unreliable? Lumaag (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just because hundreds of articles might contain problems doesn't mean it's okay to repeat those problems. this is not simply our opinion, as per the link I provided to you earlier. If you want to question it, you can question it at the Talk page for that linked page. DonIago (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

May 2025



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at :Hellboy (2004 film) ↗. Your edits appear to be disruptive ↗ and have been or will be reverted ↗.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges ↗. ''Please review WP:DEFCAT ↗. You've received multiple advisories about how you're applying categories in the past; please be more judicious going forward.''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> DonIago (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:How is what I did in any way "disruptive"? In fact, I believe the edits are actually exactly the opposite, rather they are constructive and helpful to readers. The Categories for Hellboy were "all over the place". When a reader of the article (like me) looked at the Categories, categories were "unorganised". I have merely attempted to put "topics next to each other". American film with American films, dates of films together with dates of films, etc. How is this disruptive? Lumaag (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::Did you read WP:DEFCAT ↗, as I noted, before commenting? Please explain how ''Hellboy'' is a film about Halloween, for starters. DonIago (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Cameron ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LSE ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

:Corrected to London School of Economics Lumaag (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

October 2025



25px|alt=icon ↗ Please stop your disruptive editing ↗.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at :2012 (film) ↗, you may be blocked from editing ↗. ''Despite prior warnings, you are continuing to add categories to articles that are unsupported by the article's verifiable ↗ content.''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> DonIago (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello again.
:I am not engaged in "an article content dispute with another editor". What makes you write that? Please tell me.
:You wrote that I “add[ed] categories to articles that are unsupported by the article's verifiable content.” I strongly disagree.
:I added two categories to 2012 (film) ↗. Let’s examine them:
:Disaster thriller films
:2012 (film) ↗ has a series of disasters: California falling into the sea, earthquakes, a supervolcano erupting, lava bombs, ash clouds, continents shifting, and world-wide flooding. This is combined with a thriller: will our hero and family make it to safety as they drive in a limo, fly in a small plane, fly in a super-sized Russian transport plane, walk, hitchhike in a truck and then sneak on-board an ark?; will the scientists get the science right in time (they almost don't)?; will our main characters survive (three don’t)? Surely such a film qualifies as a "disaster thriller".
:Noah's Ark in film
:The premise of 2012 (film) ↗ is that a massive flood is going to inudate the Earth, wiping out all living things. Arks (which are called "arks" in the film) are built to save a large group of humans. Animals are brought into the arks in pairs. One of the characters is even named Noah. 2012 (film) ↗ is a secular Noah's Ark story for the 21st century. One can also look at other items in the Category:Noah's Ark in film. These include 40 Days and Nights ↗, The Box (1967 film) ↗, Cats Don't Dance ↗, The Enchanted Toymaker ↗, Evan Almighty ↗, It's Tough to Be a Bird ↗, Muppets from Space ↗, which is to say: the category does not only contain Biblical epics.
:So, I am certain that both categories which I added are "supported by the article's verifiable content".
:However, if, notwithstanding the evidence set out above, you continue to disagree that these categories are supported by verifiable ↗ content, I would be happy to start a discussion on the article's Talk page ↗ and let other editors decide.
:Finally: what is the reason you claim I am engaged in disruptive editing ↗? Is it that you disagree with the addition of the two categories? Is there something else? I ask because, as before, I genuinely want to understand and so change what I do.
:Thank you. Lumaag (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::Adding categories that aren't supported by the article's verifiable content when you've been advised multiple times on this page to be more careful ''is'' disruptive. It presents the appearance that you're disregarding the prior attempts to get you to change this problematic behavior.
::Your descriptions of your rationales for adding the categories is the definition of original research ↗. You're not going by sourced content, especially content that appears within the article, but rather drawing your own interpretations. The closest use I can find of the word "thriller" within the article is that the film was nominated for a "Best Action, Adventure, or Thriller Film" award, which at best means there's a 1/3 chance that the people who give out that award considered it to be a thriller film.
::There is also no mention of Noah's Ark within the article.
::You need to stop adding categories based on your own beliefs, and stick to adding categories that are supported by statements made by reliable sources.
::If you want to make a case at the article's Talk page, you are, of course, welcome to do so. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1322758940 -->

Disambiguation link notification for November 28



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Murdoch Mysteries characters ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Davidson ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks. Corrected. Lumaag (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)