User talk:Doniago/Archive 25
 | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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, please consult 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) 00:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles
While removing my whole entry to the page, you commented that there was "no source for significance". Since H.G. Wells is generally acknowledged as one of the founding fathers of speculative fiction, the title of his work, and its page on Wikipedia included, and the body stated that it makes (by inference in 1901) space flight possible due to its anti-gravitational qualities, could you please explain what significance is lacking? An addendum was included to show a 21st century television usage also, lest 20th century literature not suffice. Could you therefore please restore my work? Jiskran (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Significance is established via a third-party reliable source taking note of the element/material/etc., ideally established via a citation. Whether the work in which the element features is itself notable isn't pertinent. You are welcome to provide such a source and re-add your material. H.G. Wells wrote about many things, not all of which are significant enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia articles. DonIago (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Reversion on List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters
I accept your reversion of my adding the etymology on List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, but you also changed some text that was already in the section before my edit (see difference between your edit and the one before mine). Was that intentional? If not, please restore those pieces. (If you want to discuss this, please {{ping}} me.) --Thnidu (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Thnidu:It was intentional. It's misleading to say that their relationship "could not" continue. I haven't seen the episode in quite awhile, but IIRC one or both of them actively breaks it off. I'd likely be amenable to a different wording, but as it was it seemed reasonable to delete it, since ultimately the important part is that Oz ends up leaving, IMO anyhow. DonIago (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Reversion on Time Loop
"No sources for significance" Did you happen to notice there are "no sources for significance" on any of the literature examples either? I was just trying to flesh the page out a bit; not exactly sure you can find "sources for significance" on something like this but that was going to be my next step. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish to remove the other unsourced examples, I won't stop you. In fact, I'd likely get to it myself at some point. DonIago (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Black Cauldron Release Info
Hi, this is WatchinDaFilms, and actually I was looking for a newspaper ad for The Black Cauldron that had the name of the accomanying short that was shown along with the film and here's what I found this morning here: http://micechat.com/forums/walt-disney-pictures/169525-black-cauldron-newspaper-ad-la-times-1985-a.html
I was always disappointed with Disney having the short Trick or Treat on the two DVD releases, just because there was a witch in the cartoon. I always felt that they didn't do their homework on the short, they're usually better than that.
Any-hoo, enjoy your day.
WatchinDaFilms — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchinDaFilms (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. Unfortunately that won't pass as a reliable source as it's a forum. If you want to pursue the matter further, good hunting! DonIago (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Accusations
Hello! I have been advised not to comment on the user's talk page, so I am referring you to mine for some illuminating comments on what I actually have, and actually have not, asserted in the infected Geats debate. Regards, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly? Beyond the edit-warring issue itself I'm more than content to minimize my involvement in this whole situation. The advice for you not to comment on their talk page is probably sound, and while I think your requests for sources are legitimate in the particular example that brought this to my attention, I'm not an admin and can only hope from here on in the situation(s) will be resolved more amicably. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, I hope so too! And I hope you weren't offended my my wish to balance some of all that you probabaly had read about me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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, please consult 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) 01:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
- This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Arkham Origins video
Hi Doniago, just wanted to thank you for keeping up the discussion, I did not know it was still ongoing until I saw Phil update the deletion page, at least some of us know we're not insane when we read NFCC#3 and it doesn't say what the other side were saying. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 19:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- What discussion am I keeping up? I don't recall doing anything involving Arkham Origins. Maybe you're confusing me with another editor? :) DonIago (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- So I am, sorry. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 19:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
hello D. I wanted to say thanks for your help in dealing with FriscoKnight's edits. Sadly, this is not the first time that editor has added cats that aren't appropriate to articles. You may have already seen it but I felt I had to remove the mention of steampunk at the 20,000 Leagues... film article as the reference only mentioned Verne's book but did not mention any of the films. However, I respect you and your editing here at WikiP so, if you feel I have over stepped the mark I do apologize. If you can find a ref that mentions the genre and the 54 film please add it with my thanks. BTW my parents took me to Disneyland in the mid 60's. One of the buildings contained an exhibit of the props and machines from that film. Unfortunately it was gone when we went back in the early 70's. I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 18:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
LA Confidential
You reverted edits to the plot section of the LA Confidential (film) page, telling the user who made them that the details were 'unnecessary'. However, they could only be considered unnecessary if you didn't actually see the film. They were not minutiae, they were key plot details. Moreover, the synopsis that you reverted to was poorly worded and bereft of information on the plot. In one paragraph it says "All three men's fates are intertwined. A dramatic showdown eventually occurs with powerful and corrupt forces within the city's political leadership and the department." This is more like what you would see in a tagline or trailer quote. Then, in the very next paragraph, it flat-out gives away the twist of who the villain is and then details the final scene again, making this line about a dramatic showdown even more redundant.
I realise you must have to do a lot of revisions and most of them are probably correctly weeding out the crap, but on this occasion you've removed information that benefited the page and replaced it with bare-bones, self-repeating fluff.95.151.56.76 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should generally be between 400-700 words. That said, I see that it's currently at 753. Still, if you'd like the current wording left in, please make an effort to bring the summary to within the guideline. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've revised the summary myself, knocking off over 100 words but leaving what I believe to be enough information for a coherent summary. You are welcome to revise or even undo my edits if you believe that is the best course of action, but please keep the plot summary guidelines in mind. If you are unable to come up with a satisfactory summary that is under 700 words I would strongly recommend discussing the matter at the Talk page for the film. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)