User talk:Doniago/Archive 11
 | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Pay attention
I did not change content in Jew's harp. --Opus88888 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't add the Carnatic Music section that had no sourcing? Doniago (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Doniago. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hairspray
Hello, I have made several edits to hairspray 2007 all of which had good intention to add to the page. However everfy single time you delete them and say it's not essential etc. well surely it makes the article more interesting and people should be allowed to add to the article unless you own copyright over it. Also although broadcast can be alright broadcasted sounds better and reads better. I hope I don't offend you in this but hope I get my point across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Broadcasted" is not standard English; "Broadcast" is the proper word. As for making the article more "interesting", the goal of Wikipedia is to provide information, not necessarily to be interesting, and plot summaries should not include unnecessary detail, as discussed in WP:FILMPLOT. I'd be happy to discuss other specific changes you feel would benefit the article if you'd like to bring them up here, but I didn't see anything that seemed to be a substantial improvement and, as I noted, I did see you introducing problems. You're also welcome to start a discussion on the Talk page for the article if you'd like the opinions of other editors. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Total Eclipse of the Heart
Have reverted your change and added link to "The Original Bootlegs" article. Incidentally, please see above for a debate which began over this very subject. Lack of citation or sources isn't strictly a reason to remove material from Wikipedia. If it was, 90% of Wikipedia would be eligible for deletion. If everyone went around just deleting unsourced material, there wouldn't be a need for a "source" tag, would there? The Cosby Show.PacificBoy 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I can identify an editor who is adding material without citing it, I remove the material and notify them. WP:BURDEN - don't add material without providing your source. Also, editors are well within their rights to delete unsourced material per WP:V. You may want to read the notes at the top of this very page. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can actually support Doniago on this matter, who has removed content that I have added for several Bonnie Tyler-related pages, but has requested that I re-insert them with cited evidence, which I have done. It's asked from Wikipedia that all claims on Wikipedia are supported with evidence. His activity on Wikipedia has been both fair and justifiable. I hope I've helped. LBrigg (Bonnietylersave's talk) 21:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: April 2012
Hello. I was just trying to help. And I'm not new here, so I know what should go in or out. The article (Harry Potter 5 (movie)) is missing a lot in its plot, very important stuff, and I added it. And now it's gone. Without a consensus. Why shouldn't I revert it again? The info that I added was good. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 22:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi WKMN. I don't doubt that you meant well, but there are strong guidelines for film plot summaries outlined at WP:FILMPLOT. The TL;DR version is that they should generally be between 400-700 words and should only focus on the elements that a reader really needs in order to understand the key points of the plot. Your summary was 1375 words, whereas before your edits the summary was 968 words. Clearly the latter is closer to the guidelines, though neither is ideal. If time permits I may try to trim it down a bit further, in fact.
- If you feel strongly that the elements you added are necessary to understanding the plot, I'd invite you to bring the matter up at the Talk page for the article itself, where other editors can offer their opinions as well.
- With regards to my having reverted your edits without a consensus, you may wish to review WP:BRD, which suggests that the ideal workflow is Bold (your edits), Revert (my edits), Discuss (what we're doing now). One doesn't need a consensus to revert your edits any more than you need a consensus to add information in the first place, though obviously edits shouldn't be reverted unless they're violating policy in some manner.
- I hope this helps your understanding of why I reverted your additions to the plot. Please feel free to bring any other questions or concerns you may have to my attention. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Insults
Please do not insult me. What the hell is "original research"? It is your way of saying that I am a liar? How dare you, Sir! Wallie (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Erased my edit again!
You are determined, aren't you. This is an encyclopedia being written, not a pathetic trading of insults. You are now saying that need a reference! You do, if something is not provable. In this case, it is obvious, and you know it. Wallie (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- ...did you even read the notes that I left for you or the notes at the top of my Talk page? "It is obvious" is not sufficient grounds for inclusion here, as the linked policies point out. If you would like to talk about this further, please review the relevant policies first. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 18:17, 11 April 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, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
In recognition of your integrity
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| For going the extra mile in relation to the matter discussed at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Well-intentioned_editor_leaving_poorly-written_notes_on_my_Talk, even though it didn't work out. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
Reply
I was actually in the process of submitting a source when you undid me, resulting in an edit conflict. RAP (talk) 15:24 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Help Desk
Did you intend to delete my answer at the Help Desk?--ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa. No, absolutely not. No idea how that happened. Sorry! Doniago (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've reinstated your comment along with the template for the unsigned editor. I remember seeing an edit conflict warning. Think I must have zigged instead of zagged. Again, very sorry about that. Doniago (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: Serenity (film)
Regarding this revert, as far as I can tell, Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) was trying to cleanup and prepare the article for a GAN, since he nominated it for GA at 15:25, four minutes after removing it.[1] While you are correct in correcting the user by pointed out that there is difference between unsourced and uncited content, the material remains uncited and, from my POV, trivial. In your restoration of the material, is there a reason you did not add a citation? Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- My only concern was that RAP had removed the material claiming it was unsourced, when in fact the source is readily apparent based on the information provided. Whether or not it's trivial wasn't applicable to the situation as that wasn't the rationale being applied. I agree that an inline citation would be ideal, but as far as I know it is not a requirement, whether or not we're talking about GAN. I wasn't even aware that RAP was trying to push it to GAN; if inline citations even for sourced material are a requirement for GAN, please point me to the relevant policy and I will endeavor to keep it in mind going forward. That being said, I wasn't able to verify the sourcing myself as I don't own a copy of the DVD, and would consequently be uncomfortable bolstering the source myself in any case. Doniago (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Star Trek Two Judson Scott
Hi - Scott's name does appear in the end credits of the movie contradicting what the other person posted - Additionally only Paramounts Startrek.com website is remoteley accurate and any other should be regarded as what anyone can post online - a bit like Wikipedia until someone challenges it.
Regards and feel free to message me back if you disagree
Alphacatmarnie (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
super size me
no need to be snotty, I do believe that I was discussing information I think should belong in the article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- That wasn't clear from your actual comment. Please feel free to undo my removal, and assume good faith when your edits are reverted. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy (film)
This film was directed by the team Hammer & Tongs. I edited the page to reflect this. You have edited it to show Garth Jennings directed the film, yet he is one half of the directorial team. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.127.65 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- IMDb clearly lists Garth Jennings as the director.[2]. There is no reference to Hammer & Tongs in the IMDb listing. If your information is correct, please re-add it with a reliable source provided. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I provided the link to the song, and the artist. What more do you need ? These were both removed by BigBird on 4/12/12 after being there since August 2009. Ghostrdr (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see any actual links/diffs in the Talk page note I responded to, and I'm not sure what article was the subject of the discussion. As I noted there, I imagine that what's needed is a third-party source that establishes the significance of the song, not merely its existence. As I haven't heard anything from Big Bird as of the time I'm writing this, I'm just venturing a guess. Doniago (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow, you're fast. The article was "Lake Okeechobee", and the song refs were placed under "Popular Culture". As a musician I was greatly offended when they were removed w/the comment, "removed irrelevant trivia". The songs written about Lake O are neither. With Wiki being riddled with reference to irrelevant TV shows like the Simpsons, I took offense to this indiscriminate removal of relevant information. I think BigBird got tired of vandalism placed by immature adolescents who can't appreciate country music. There must be a better way to do this, removing the song references is contrary to the whole purpose of Wiki, as I understand it. Ghostrdr (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Slow day at work. :) As far as other articles including this sort of thing, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the references are probably inappropriate in those articles as well and should be tagged and/or removed. I would agree that "irrelevant trivia" was not the most diplomatic description. I would instead have used "third-party sourcing needed to establish significance" or such, but it sounds like I would agree with the removal on princple. WP articles should not contain lists of pop culture references/other bands that have covered a song/every time the Mona Lisa appears in a tv show/every song that mentions God/etc. unless a third-party source can be provided to establish that that reference was somehow considered significant. FWIW, if the songs had been added and I couldn't determine who had placed them, I would have tagged the section and given it three months or so, but then gone ahead and done exactly what Big Bird apparently did. Doniago (talk) 15:42, 2 May 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) 14:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Asus tablet grammer problem.
Hello dear Doniago.
my reccently view of the page: Asus, was that you are said i used a bad or poor grammer.
i know about it, but i can't fix this again, because i don't know where is that problem that i have to fix.
can i wish youself editting the ** TABLET ** Subject in the asus arcitle?
It is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ASUS&oldid=486686780
It's important to set on the arcitle, because it was a important news almost for Asus and Google.
Really thank. Milad Mosapoor (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2012 (GMT)
- Hi Milad,
- The grammar issues aside, the information you added needs sourcing beyond what you provided. You list four tablets...each one needs to be sourced (perhaps there's a common source that can be used there). You also had an unsourced statement saying that Google has been working with Asus.
- I'd recommend putting the text you'd like added to the article onto the article's Talk page. That way other editors interested in the subject can help you with sourcing and clean up the information with you. I really don't know enough about Asus to be very helpful. I will say that months shouldn't be in all-caps, and your text included information that was in boldface for no apparent reason. If there's something more specific you'd like my input on, please paste the text here and I'll see what kind of feedback I can offer, but I'm reluctant to grammar-check anything that couldn't go into the article because it doesn't have a source in any case.
- Thanks for coming to me with your concerns; I hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Doniago, Thank really for your feedback to my inqiry that i said.
you said completely, but i cant convinced, you know, you saying i used a poor grammer in the sentences of the Tablet part that i made on the page. but, i thought my just problem is on the last pharageraph, look at this: Google has been based for unveiling on partnership with Asus to design an 7-inch tablet with a common brand of both companies i won to said google has a relationship with asus for some to makeing that tablet.
and another querstion: in my edit you see i used at last 3-4 line, but another persons who made the subject *Essentio* OR *GPS devices* used metioned just about 1 or 2 sentence.
Thank you for your guide that you interesting to showing to me. Milad Mosapoor (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2012 (GMT)
- I'm probably about to sound like a bit of an ass here, and I do sincerely apologize for that, but I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding you, and as a result I'm not sure how to respond to your concerns, because I can't determine what they are. I do understand that you mean well, and I'm trying to get another editor involved in the discussion who can speak with you in your primary language. I believe that's Farsi, but please let me know (and accept another huge round of apologies) if I'm incorrect in that theory. Alternately you may want to take the discussion to the article talk page, where you may have better luck. I do apologize for the delay in getting back to you, I was hoping to get help faster. Doniago (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello dear doniago,
I think you want to saying to me i talking althorgh with my primary language, to goting my correct point sharper,
so please read this sentence in farsi (if you can read it or translate it or redirecting this to a person who he/she are proficient in persian/farsi language.)
| “ | سلا دست عزیز، من قصد دارم آن مطلب گفته شده درباره مقاله اسوس را درمورد قسمت تبلت ها ارائه دهم ولی این مورد توسط این کاربر به دلیل مشکلات گرامری رد شده است. Doniago
لطفا به این شخص بگویید که مطلب من را از نظر گرامری تا حد امکان اگر ممکن هست ویرایش کنند و متن جدید را یا به اطلاع من برساند و یا خودشان در صفحه اسوس در ویکی پدیای انگلیسی قرار بدهند. با تشکر فراوان |
” |
Milad Mosapoor (talk) 07:16, 01 May 2012 (GMT)
- Hi Milad. Unfortunately my efforts to find someone who could speak with you were unsuccessful. The best I could come up with is that you may be able to find a user at Category:User fa-4 or Category:User fa-5 who can work with you, though most of the editors I located there didn't appear to have been active recently. Alternately you could post at the Talk page for Asus and editors there may be able to assist you better. You're also welcome to ask for assistance at WP:HELPDESK or Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. I'm very sorry I can't better assist you. Doniago (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Doniago.
A Big thanks from all of you'r assist in recent relations.
please be friend with me in my facebook or yahoo! mesanger. (all of my info is on my user page)
Thank you. Milad Mosapoor (talk) 16:18, 08 May 2012 (GMT)
Rescue 911
I had to remove something that looks suspicious to me on the page Rescue 911. There is no official source that I know of to confirm something of unaired episodes or a death that was in an unaired episode. From the looks of it, I say it's probably vandelism. That was twice that I had to do that. So you might to looked the editing history of that page and see for yourself so you can decide what to do. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I know absolutely nothing about it, but your edits made perfect sense to me. It's an easy enough question - if the episode hasn't aired, where are you getting the details for the episode from? You might want to advise the editor about unsourced material, there are warning templates for that sort of thing. If they continue to add it a warning for edit-warring wouldn't be out of line. Just make sure you don't end up violating 3RR yourself. I can get involved myself if necessary, but an editor whose already interested in the page (i.e. not me) might be a better choice. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kurt Cobain
Dear Doniago, Sorry my reversion of your undo on the Kurt Cobain page. I would like to provide significant links to keep my editing. Can you let me know what kind of links I shall provide?
Thank you so much! Saocarlos (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- You need third-party coverage of the paintings to show that they somehow garnered attention. An article in the New York Times for instance. It's not enough to say "X made a drawing of Y", we need a source to establish that the drawing achieved some significance. Hope this helps. Doniago (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Doniago, Thank you so much for your answer! I understand but this painting was auctioned at Christie's. Christie's auctions only signicant art works. Can you reconsider this matter? Saocarlos (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you have a source for that (I would guess Christie's has a site that may have it listed), that would work. Your text should include the fact that it was auctioned there, as that establishes why the art matters. Anyway, it's not just up to me...if other editors had an issue with your addition they would also have a right to remove it until there was a consensus to keep it in. That's why at the top of my page I suggest that editors might want to talk about content-related matters at the article's Talk page rather than here. (smile) I'm not really sure that a painting of Cobain being auctioned is especially significant, but as long as there's a good source for it I won't contest it. Doniago (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Doniago, the sale of this painting at Christie's is recorded in all sites of Art Pricing. This artwork was featured on the poster of Christe's auction on 15 November 2012. But I will not insist, because I'm more interested in the indisputable quality of Wikipedia. Thank you again! Saocarlos (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
You've got a hub cap diamond star halo
Adrian Shaw's album title [3], a blog site [4], but also this one [5]. Then we have lower breeds like [6] and the specialist like [7] and even our Hungarian sister site [8]!! So far ... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Allmusic would be acceptable I believe, as an indicator of existence but not necessarily significance (I'm not sure about that). Blogs generally aren't reliable sources though. Neither are wikis, including Wikipedia itself. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that maybe Google's 2,150,000 hits for "Get It On + T. Rex + Hydra" give us "an indicator of existence", thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're getting at, really. Doniago (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's an bizarre and rare reference to Greek mythology, in a pop song lyric, that has pervaded popular music culture since 1971. But to add it appears to be WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree, unless someone involved with the creation of the song or a third-party source have made the connection. Doniago (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Shucks, those insightful Hungars. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree, unless someone involved with the creation of the song or a third-party source have made the connection. Doniago (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's an bizarre and rare reference to Greek mythology, in a pop song lyric, that has pervaded popular music culture since 1971. But to add it appears to be WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're getting at, really. Doniago (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that maybe Google's 2,150,000 hits for "Get It On + T. Rex + Hydra" give us "an indicator of existence", thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
UPS
Hi Doniago, I found it interesting that you reverted some edits of mine on the grounds that they were unsourced, when they were factual observations, but have no problem accepting the sections in which they appear, which are also unsourced. Only unsourced praise is allowed? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk)
- You are welcome to challenge unsourced material either by removing it or tagging it for needing citations (or using a different template as appropriate). Other editors are under no obligation to challenge or remove material solely because it lacks sourcing. The presence of unsourced material should not be construed as an indication that any editor approves of its presence. Doniago (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- True, true, and had it been a Fedex truck I had been stuck behind today trying to drive through town I would probably have vented on them. That said, their business model is to impose congestion on others. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Reversion of edited Velgarth page.
I'm more than a bit confused here, so perhaps you can explain --and justify-- your decision to remove my changes to the "Basilisk" section and revert it back to its former condition. The rationale that you have used --unsourced, overdetailed and non-encyclopedic-- strikes me as, well, unfounded. To say the least. Let's see, the entry for "Cold Drake" uses 803 words, and reads like a short story. But that's acceptable? While the current --and reverted-- section for Basilisk ignores three-quarters of the description of the creature.
But that's acceptable and appropriate, eh? Because the entry is 100% accurate to the books, that makes it "unsourced", and because a 173 word description renders it "overdetailed" (especially compared to a 803 one).
I don't often edit Wiki articles, and only do so if I feel I'm actually making a correction and/or contribution. So I stand in awe of your decision, and eagerly wait with bated breath for your explanation regarding the decision to delete my edit.
Masterius2011 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Masterius
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - that I edited your content and not other content within the article is in no way a comment as to whether that other content is appropriate for inclusion. Similarly, that material is included in a Wikipedia article should not be used to justify the addition of further material, as it could be that the original material is inappropriate for inclusion.
- If the information you added is accurate to the books, then source it to the books.
- Also, it appears that you may be adopting an unnecessarily abrasive tone in your final comments. I am not certain what you would wish to accomplish by doing so, but I would certainly be curious to find out. Doniago (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure why you brought the matter here if you were going to raise it at the article's Talk page almost simultaneously. I imagine it would be best to continue any discussion there, however. Doniago (talk) 20:36, 18 May 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) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You are incorrect, unless it has been changed recently
Since an IP doesn't 'own' their talk page, they cannot remove their own warnings regardless of their editing restrictions. However, I'm not going to edit war with you to restore them. I'm just going to block the IP on sight the next time they step out of line. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BLANKING appears to me to be saying that IP editors are free to remove warning messages (though not active block messages), though perhaps I missed something? Anyway, I agree that if they do act up again a block would be reasonable. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, looks like Luna Santin added the part about IPs in 2008 (!). So perhaps they are allowed. I certainly wouldn't block them for removing the warnings, but at the same time I'm usually inclined to restore them once after the blanking. Syrthiss (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, warning-removal is certainly not a blockable offense AFAIK, but I'll be the first to say that it sometimes looks like an editor (IP or otherwise) is trying to hide the fact that they received a warning. Now if they were actually modifying the warning, that would be a different matter, since that would constitute refactoring someone's words, which is a no-no (even if their words came from a template). Doniago (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, looks like Luna Santin added the part about IPs in 2008 (!). So perhaps they are allowed. I certainly wouldn't block them for removing the warnings, but at the same time I'm usually inclined to restore them once after the blanking. Syrthiss (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I re-revised the edit you reverted, rationale is on the article's talk page. What do you think? Ellsworth (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ellsworth, thanks for getting in touch. No problem with your edits per se this time around, but I did feel the synopsis was overly-long in general and have trimmed it by about 100 words. While there aren't specific word count guidelines for novels, in this case the film guideline of 400-700 words seemed appropriate; after my cuts the synopsis is still almost 800 words, but I think that's okay. I wouldn't mind if it was longer as long as the additions are material that is critical to understanding the plot. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Delta PHX-CVG
The flight is no longer bookable on delta.com. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. I'd much prefer an actual source be provided (press release?), but I won't press the matter, though I'd understand if someone else did. Doniago (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Wes Anderson page Vandalism
Doniago: the Wes Anderson page vandalism is still going on. How do we proceed to get the name portion of his page locked? please see below our exchange from November 2010, these purposefully malevolent changes have serious repercussions as they end up in the press. Please help and please advise.
Discussion from November 2010:
Wes Anderson page is constantly vandalized by user with IP addresses in Illinois (75.57.191.220)(75.57.175.50)(71.201.120.78) changing middle name to "Mortimer" this needs to be stopped as is not factual information. What more can be done than just constantly "reverting" the info back?81.64.38.94 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Warn them, as a start. If they keep it up they'll eventually get blocked. WP:3RR may also be applicable. If you believe the 3 IP's are definitely related, you may want to look into WP:SOCK as well. As it's just a minor vandalism I wouldn't get too riled up over it, just make sure the edit's being undone and the IP's getting incremental warnings. Eventually they'll get tagged for it one way or another. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks, this has been going on for over a year. The IP addresses are hardly ever the same. I represent the living person in question and this false information is finding it's way into press articles and even a recent book, I think we are right to be "riled up" as this is ongoing and is a cause of distress for the person in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.38.94 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the problem with an encyclopedia that anyone's allowed to edit is that anyone's allowed to edit it. You could try asking for page protection, but if you're going to do that you should be prepared to prove that this same vandalism has been occurring repeatedly from multiple IP editors for a prolonged period of time. I'm not sure how difficult it is to get this protection, objectively speaking. As for it showing up elsewhere, it's rather unfortunate that anyone would consider unsourced material on Wikipedia to be reliable...I certainly don't. Please feel free to come to me with any other questions/concerns. (smile) Doniago (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 82.123.232.70 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the page history I only saw one recent instance of this possible vandalism, and it was recent enough that any editor could undo it, which kind of makes me wonder why you didn't do so yourself? I have reverted the edit and given the IP a warning about adding unsourced material, which is something you could also do yourself. If the same IP continues to add unsourced information they should receive appropriate warnings and perhaps be blocked. If multiple IPs begin adding the same information repeatedly, I would request that the page be protected at WP:RFPP, but one incident after several months of quiet doesn't meet the qualifications for protection. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:09, 5 June 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) 02:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Michael Scott
I removed the section, because it quotes an article from 2006. It's not relevant. I didn't know I had to specify on the talk page, but will do some from now on, and will be removing it again. 71.59.181.111 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- No need to note it on the Talk page, just make sure you provide an edit summary when you remove it. Thanks for clearing things up! Doniago (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Rescue 911
I want Rescue 911 to be blocked from any unregistered users. Someone has been using different IP address has been keep on posting a story about one of the deaths in an unaired episode that is never proven that it was filmed or the event of it occured. So please, tell someone on wikipedia to block that page from unregistered users. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Goth talk page undo
Hi Doniago
Having reviewed what I actually wrote, I can see why you regarded it as discussion of the topic rather than development of the article.
However, if I may quote in my own defence from my second sentence: "I don't consider myself competent to add anything to the article, but would like to request one or more of those who could, to tell us something more about Goth psychology, or a belief system...."
In other words my contribution to the talk page was *intended* to be a request for expansion of the article in a specific area. I then went on to suggest some possible focus areas, with the idea of clarifying my request by giving examples.
Please advise whether you think I should:
- just forget it
- rewrite the request / suggestion in a clearer (and shorter) form
- leave it to you to change
- revert your undo
Regards
David FLXD (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi David, thanks for getting in touch. I'd recommend restating your concerns to make it more clear how you think the article should be changed/expanded, rather than reflecting on your own (or "our") specific interests. In other words, rather than stating "I'm curious about..." say "I think the article could benefit from more information about..." or "Is there information about x that could be added to the article? I think this would be useful." In essence, make your concerns about benefitting the article rather than individuals. That being said, if you're not invested in the article itself, it may not be worth pursuing...it's possible that editors may point you to sources and invite you to add the information yourself. Some editors get prickly if they think that others are asking them to do work but aren't willing to contribute themselves. Hope this helps, and thaks again for coming to me with your concerns! Doniago (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - will make a short, clear suggestion and leave it at that. I am perfectly happy to make a contribution, but as a non-Goth don't feel that I have the insight to answer my own questions! David FLXD (talk) 12:06, 20 June 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) 00:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Unsigned -->