User talk:Doniago/Archive 21
 | 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Jurassic Park
Hi! I was just wondering what source, besides the film itself and the novel, would be needed for the differences section? Also, what would "real world context" mean in this... ehem, context? drewmunn talk
- As films will (almost) always differ from their source material in numerous ways, if we're going to include a section discussing those differences, we should include sources that discuss the differences in order to establish that those differences are in some manner significant; otherwise it could be argued that we're applying undue weight.
- Additionally, there should be some discussion as to why there are differences from a real-world perspective. Were scenes cut for time? Was something deemed unfilmable? Etc.
- What we shouldn't have is a generic unsourced list which will almost certainly attract bloat and ultimately won't be especially encyclopedic.
- Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
List of fictional substances
I don't know what you have against me or the entry I was trying to add, but please refer to my post here. Eridani (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
American Dad! edit
Saw your edit here [1]. Yea, I think you're right. I like your tweaks. AmericanDad86 (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks AD86. Particularly in light of our past difficulties I appreciate you taking the time to get in touch. DonIago (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're very welcome, Doniago. We had a disagreement; we got heated; we got angry; but at the end of the day, I always knew you were a good faith editor with adroit writing skills. ;) AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad my BA in English Writing is in fact good for something then. :p DonIago (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, we're two peas in a pod. I have a BA in Journalism from 2012. Feel free to tell me what a writinng godd I aaam at anyt8ime and how it's really paid off for me.. =D AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, my degree has proven highly valuable. I use it when I write sensitive emails at work...and edit Wikipedia articles. :p DonIago (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Doniago, I don't even want to hear that. At least you have a job. I'd say you're doing very well for yourself considering that. I've been looking for three months since moving back home from college and have not been able to find a good career job involving my degree. All my degree has been used for is Wikipedia. :*( AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- You can hire me somewhere since I know you love my personality, Doniago. :( AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Aside from our one issue I don't have any serious grievances with you, though I do wish you'd consolidate your edits and use summaries more often. If you were in VT I might be able to help you out job-wise...but otherwise I'm afraid you're likely on your own. Sorry to hear you're having difficulties finding work though; hope things pick up soon! DonIago (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well now wait a minute, you're the one who gets a little snippy in edit summary. I don't take kindly to disrespect. You got to know that about me. If you're to get snappy, I'm gonna bite back and you got bit back. That's just how it is. Other than that though, I have no qualms with you either. I'm a really nice guy but one that you do not cross. You have to know that about me, that you can't cross with the disrespect. AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd just like to say though that I respect you as an editor and think you have fantastic writing skills. That said, I just think you got to... you GOT TO adjust your communication sometimes. You can come across very belligerent and obnoxious, Doniago, like you just want to press people's buttons. And that's coming from an editor who you now know respects you and your many good faith edits. AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Aside from our one issue I don't have any serious grievances with you, though I do wish you'd consolidate your edits and use summaries more often. If you were in VT I might be able to help you out job-wise...but otherwise I'm afraid you're likely on your own. Sorry to hear you're having difficulties finding work though; hope things pick up soon! DonIago (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, my degree has proven highly valuable. I use it when I write sensitive emails at work...and edit Wikipedia articles. :p DonIago (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, we're two peas in a pod. I have a BA in Journalism from 2012. Feel free to tell me what a writinng godd I aaam at anyt8ime and how it's really paid off for me.. =D AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad my BA in English Writing is in fact good for something then. :p DonIago (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're very welcome, Doniago. We had a disagreement; we got heated; we got angry; but at the end of the day, I always knew you were a good faith editor with adroit writing skills. ;) AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Not An Edit War
I *AM NOT* "edit waring" on Megatron. My edits are supported by the actual content of the article. The changes I reverted are clearly incorrect, which can be confirmed by, you know, actually reading the article. The changes I reverted constitute vandalism and therefore *do not* fall under the 3R rule. Also, have you left a simular nastygram for the other editor? Or am I being singled out? Thanks, =//= Johnny Squeaky 17:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt you'll be able to make a compelling case for adding a category that's under dispute as not being vandalism, and would recommend that you don't try, but obviously I can't stop you from re-adding it if you wish to continue to do so.
- Adding/removing a category is not vandalism in any case, at least not IMO. You might be able to make a case for disruptive editing, but you should first establish a consensus at the article's Talk page instead of unilaterally reverting as has been the case to this point.
- I left the standard edit-warring notice, not a "nastygram"...and yes, I notified the other editor as well and started a discussion at the article's Talk page, something you should have done before I even became involved.
- This isn't the first time you've shown a tendency towards article ownership, and IIRC you were previously blocked for exactly this sort of behavior. I would recommend that you slow down and work to establish a consensus instead of consistently trying to act without anyone supporting you. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is *not* necessary for me to make a "compelling" argument for keeping a category that covers content that is in fact actually in the article. If you would READ the article, you would know why the category is correct.
- Your insinuation about WP:OWN is offensive, and really unsupported. Reverting vandalism is not WP:OWN, an issue that quite frankly, you seem to suffer from yourself.
- The simple and clear fact is, the actual content of the article supports the category. If you use your eyes to read the article, you will see this. My edit is correct, but if you want to be a bully, there's not much I can do about it. So, go ahead and throw around your weight. =//= Johnny Squeaky 17:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Megatron Vandalism
Please explain why you keep reverting a demonstrably correct edit at Megatron. Such edits constitute vandalism. Before you make edits of this type, please exercise “due diligence” and ascertain if your edit is correct. In addition, when reverting clearly correct edits, please consider discussing your change on the Talk Page. =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- We're done here. You continued to revert the article despite my words above and showed no interest in discussing the situation at the article's Talk page. You additionally appear to have ignored the advice provided in the edit-warring notice I gave you earlier. I have referred the matter to WP:3RN so that an uninvolved party may make a determination as to whether your conduct in this matter was appropriate. DonIago (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Just checking in to make sure we don't have a problem. I'm aware that I can come across as a bit loud sometimes. Vashti (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your tone got a bit overbearing for me (not seriously...when I say a bit I do mean a bit). But additionally, since we do have a previously established consensus, I'm not comfortable making changes to that consensus without the input of additional editors. I hope that's understandable. I do think you raised some good points, I'm just not sure what the best approach to handling them is.
- That said, as evidenced from the above conversation, today's been a rather more active day for me on WP than I tend to prefer, and there are a couple of other non-WP factors, so I may be a bit more sensitive currently than I might be otherwise.
- If you're invested in pushing this forward...and like I said, you have some valid concerns...I might recommend poking at the project page to see if you can elicit additional feedback.
- I do appreciate you contacting me directly. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. I'm sorry we clashed and I didn't intend it, and I understand about wanting to get other opinions. We'll see. I probably won't push too hard as this isn't a big thing for me; it really only came up when I was checking wikilinks for the Dwellers page. It does worry me though. Vashti (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's entirely likely that the existing consensus should be revisited...as you probably noticed it didn't have a lot of active participation, but at the time the article page was lousy with bloat and one-off race appearances, so putting something in place seemed prudent. Anyway, I'll certainly chime in again if and when other editors speak up. Hell, if I end up feeling more proactive maybe I'll give them a poke myself. Anyway, thanks again for getting in direct contact with me and your kind words; muchly appreciated! DonIago (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. I'm sorry we clashed and I didn't intend it, and I understand about wanting to get other opinions. We'll see. I probably won't push too hard as this isn't a big thing for me; it really only came up when I was checking wikilinks for the Dwellers page. It does worry me though. Vashti (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2013 (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 suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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) 12:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
There was a problem with the template on the infobox of Charlie St. Cloud (film) and I didn't know which template was correct. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- NP. Think I fixed that for you but let me know if there's any problems you can't figure out. DonIago (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been solved an I'll be sure to let you know if there's something I can't figure out. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Our 2015 Wishlist
They are:
James Bond films on BBC One
Also in 1971, a swedish man drives in the road when the moose is on the road, suddenly, the car crashes into the tree and the driver injured himself. But there something's wrong with the car? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelFan1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- MarvelFan1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I've got absolutely no idea what this is about. DonIago (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's a user that will soon be blocked. I suggest that you delete this nonsense. Freshh! (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2013 (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 suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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) 12:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
User_talk:AspieNo1 - A very important Wikipedia rule
==
LOL - hilarious, indeed - I guess that is why this page is significant - Damon brought each of us out of the proverbial closet, and said it is OK to work as a team and still be different(even those he never met but touched) - and we are not alone - with thousands of people with Asperger's and autism realising it is OK to be a geek, a smart-alek, a loner, a teamplayer, whatever each of us has different disabilities and abilities - it's all about the trade-off - conformity is not required to be an aspie; I can find my own way, or seek help, if I do not have the confidence to do things, and I know I have people who appreciate me being me and not a clone of a perfect soldier. We all can appreciate ourselves and our uniqueness - and not being wrong for being us. Many of us have a sneaking admiration for the one who opened our eyes and made us feel part of the world.
FYI: many of us working in the project have met Damon and been inspired by him -his lectures and radio segments have made us realise there is skill in each of us, no matter what - just because we may have a difficulty, or difference doesn't matter - even those in the disability organisations he is member of in Ireland and elsewhere who are not in the autistic spectrum have been affected.
Us Aspies, Cousins and Auties - with language he allows us to joke about ourselves and not blame the Mundane Sire we tend to think outside the box and of society and appropriateness - moderate, fair, balanced, and impartial to a fault - straight and always try to keep to the law and rules - order and justice exists in every fibre of our existence; we think of the group first and not ourselves.
Thus the term Aspies, Cousins and Auties refer to a class of society or group - and not normally aspie (as in one), we think as a collective, and thus feel uncomfortable in a collective, using language of one. The use of we reflects everyone in Ireland and around the world. Referring to me or I after all would be selfish, and we cannot have that! We need to function in a balanced, moderate, neutral and socially just world.
We can both know the person of this article to see, or hear or read from, but on the grand-scheme of things, none of us really know the other - all we get is a snap-shot. As regards suggestion that me or any of the other contributors being to closely connected or related to the subject and cannot be independent or such, I think that shows a complete lack of understanding about what us Aspies, Cousins and Auties feel as natural unselfish community-minded compulsives. We do not have a single thought which is negative, hostile, false, devious, or any such thing. In my, and probably many in the spectrum (and likely many others who know about us) this is at best a very bad joke, if not down rights insulting and abusive language.
If I or any other person was so minded and like that (which makes me crawl in my skin just thinking of it), we would possessive and not want anybody to "corrupt" or get involved in improving the listing. Sure it is important to me and other, but we are not like that; in the grand scheme of things it is a stepping stone to recognition.
There is one thing - somebody edited that Damon is Irish; that is not entirely accurate. In the submissions and google.ie search (which was removed late last night or early this morning) there was a piece from some chat site he was on that listed that shows he is British Born, was Irish Naturalised and only has Irish-voting rights and thus got Belgian Nationality instated (retrospective to 1st of January 1985). Comes from annoying the Minister of Justice of the time, as he says in the Lonergan Case - all those involved had their information sent to the minister, and he found ways to punish them all - his naturalisation details are no longer on file.Re: comment on User-Talk:AspieNo1 - A very important Wikipedia rule
Regarding Mithril
Oh god I give up you're getting on my nerves. pluma♫ ♯ 02:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
My So Called Life Episode Summaries
Hi Doniago - reverted the MYSL "Life of Brian" episode summary back with minor edits. The revert adds additional information about the episode. Over detail had been edited down. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tino1994 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The Thing (1982) Cast
"Reverted edits by 112.209.205.91 (talk) to last version by 216.81.94.72 we use how they were credited at the time" - I know they were properly credited for the original film before the 2011 prequel, but the prequel revealed the names of two Norwegian characters. Also 3 of the 14 original cast (R.J. MacReady, George Bennings and Vance Norris) of the 1982 version had their full names revealed as well. So why did you reverted the edit? --121.54.32.99 (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)