User talk:Doniago/Archive 27
 | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | 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) 23:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Terminator Salvation
I've recently added an amendment on the Terminator Salvation page regarding its upcoming sequel Terminator Genesis, however I was informed that a reliable source needed to be added in order validify the artical so I've done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicDagon (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Saw that. I think it probably needs some tweaking, but the addition of a source was a great improvement.
- Also, please note that new Talk page threads should generally be added to the bottom of the pages in question. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
On the Wachowskis and Respecting a Transgender Persons Proper Gender Identity
Hi there. I absolutely do not believe my edits on the pages regarding the Wachowskis' early work (such as V for Vendetta, The Matrix Reloaded, etc) are disruptive nor do I believe they should have been removed. To continue to refer to a transgender person by their birth name when speaking of past events and/or early work is both extremely transphobic and inaccurate. Lana Wachowski is a woman and should be recognized as such. When you speak of a transgender person's life and their accomplishments, you should ALWAYS use their current name, gender pronouns, etc even when you are discussing events that occurred prior to their transition. Yes, she went by "Larry" at the time and yes she was recognized as being a part of of the "Wachowski Brothers" but both have since been renamed out of respect for Lana's transition and the credit should be given to the current name of the individual and current title of the group. At the very least, the name on its own should be changed in each article from "Larry" to "Lana" in all affiliated articles. To leave it as it is now would be blatantly transphobic, disrespectful, and harmful. As someone who is transgender and as someone who has taught week long courses about the transgender community, I feel I know what I am talking about much more so than a group of cisgender (non-transgender) individuals who most likely have had no personal experience in dealing with the transgender community. Unless you can show me evidence that Lana Wachowski herself wishes to be referred to by her birth name and be recognized as being a part of the Wachowski Brothers when speaking of her early work, I believe my changes to the articles where valid. I will be bringing up this issue on the talk pages of the individual articles as well. Tristianjjm (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would have recommended you discuss this at the article's Talk page(s), but since you're already planning to or have done that I don't have much to say here. DonIago (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't Fear the Reaper - Blue Oyster Cult
Just an FYI, removing valid information is a breach of the Wikipedia policies. Please don't remove information without just cause. Furthermore, please don't ask others to discuss when you're the one with the problem - it should be you pointing out a valid claim for removal, not me. You could, however, approach an approved admin or other leader to discuss whether they agree with your removals - instead of approaching a dead-ended situation of constantly reverting each other. ~grez868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grez868 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Good day.
~grez868
- Just as an FYI, new comments on Talk pages should generally be left at the bottom of the Talk page.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "valid" information. I left a clear edit summary explaining why I was removing the information; and if you had questions as to why I was removing the information you clearly knew how to ask what my rationale was either here or at the article's Talk page but opted not to do so.
- It is generally considered best practice to abide by a practice of bold, revert, discuss. You added information, I reverted; it's now best for you to discuss the matter if you wish to, rather than simply re-adding your material. It is highly inappropriate to say that I'm the one with the problem when no consensus has been established either way, and I stated my claim in my edit summary in all cases.
- No editor is under any impetus to approach an admin or "other leader" to seek validity for their changes to an article. It is more accurate to say that editors should seek consensus for edits that have been disputed. Which effectively means that, as you're the editor wishing to add material, you should be seeking consensus once your addition has been disputed.
- There's no such thing as a dead-end situation of constantly reverting each other. That would be edit-warring and there are specific ways of handling such a scenario.
- Just as an FYI, you can have your signature added automatically by inserting four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. Good Day. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Good day. Your summaries only explain that you don't think it is important, not that it isn't factually important. Opinions aren't fact after all. I don't say I am right either.
- Technically, if you have an issue with an article, you should actually discuss before removing to avoid an edit-war outright - just as Eddy did. As stated on the article's talk page, recaps are not a blacklisted source of information otherwise the site used would itself be blacklisted from the wiki. Everyone on here works voluntarily and it is annoying when someone just happens to start a war based on conjecture or opinion. I admit my part in the warring and apologise for doing so, but it is two sided, as you are guilty of the exact same breaches of policy.
- Finally, thanks for the tip - I just figured this out thanks to noticing my name also appearing after the signing.
Grez868 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Editors are not required to discuss removal of content before doing so, though as you've observed, if the removal itself is contested then it's usually best to start a discussion at a Talk page, barring cases of blatant vandalism or such.
- Just because a source isn't "blacklisted" doesn't mean it makes a case for including the material either. Verifiability of material is one of the criteria for inclusion; not the sole criterion.
- My opinion, which seems to be the consensus based on discussions I've had about this in the past and is in accordance with WP:IPC, is that when using a pop culture reference as a basis for significance, the reference should not merely discuss the existence of the reference but also establish in some way that it is significant. The Simpsons makes anywhere from a few to dozens of pop culture references per episode; to claim that just because The Simpsons referenced something makes it significant is, in my opinion, overstating the case. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 30 April 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) 23:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Under Siege 2 - MPAA cuts
Hey there. I can't find any link that confirms information about MPAA cuts of Under Siege 2, even though i know that it is true, so i will not re-post the info untill i find anything official that confirms it. Thanks for the heads up. Andrew Ryder (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shahrukh Khan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shahrukh Khan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've re-added Logsdail to the Dahl infobox, but with details of the connection in the article. I know it's not really in the ideal place, but I couldn't see a better location for this information. Edwardx (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bourne Identity
Please Doniago, avoid the censorship. It´s constantly. The spirit from where the Wiki was made is being deluded. The idea is that each reader can make a little contribution, and if you and many other rules are constantly remaking the articles, the contributors will go. When you remove my "little" contribution (maybe 1 line?), I though that maybe I was wrong. I checked out the dictionary and I found this: 2. to film again, as a picture or screenplay; 3. a more recent version of an older film. What kind of evidence do I need to say that The Bourne Identity is a remake of a 1988 film called The Bourne Identity? If you like cinema, please try to keep the real spirit of, being honest, instead of to keep the Hollywood perspective from which, there is only one The Bourne Identity, coincidentally the bad one and the newer one. Now you can take refuge in my fail using words like: censorship, wrong, honest and others; and then, the true will be hidden within the subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.107.111 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Information published on Wikipedia should be verifiable, and editors have every right to ask for sources. This has nothing to do with censorship, and if it's a problem for editors to be asked for sources then this may not be the best place for them to contribute. If you're going to claim the film is a remake, then please provide a reliable source backing up your claim. I believe with regards to film specifically a remake means they're specifically intending to redo the previous version, and I don't see evidence of that in the article. In any case, if you believe the information should be in the article without sourcing, you're welcome to ask other editors for their opinions at the article's Talk page. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, please note that new Talk page threads should generally be started at the bottom of their respective pages. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Doniago, sorry I didn´t know where to place my response. Next time I´ll do it. I think that we have a problem about the concepts. The Bourne Identity is an "adaptation of Robert Ludlum's novel The Bourne Identity" from 1988, The Bourne Identity is an "adaptation of Robert Ludlum's novel of the same name" from 2002. You don´t consider that the second one is a remake because you consider that is another kind of adaptation of the novel. Simply, I disagree. During the last years I watch Spiderman again and again and it´s an adaptation of something (comics, videogames, old movies, and overall assimilated prototypes of collective consciousness). The plot is always the same, a spider bites a man, a thief kills his uncle, the boy acquires superpowers... If really we are going to consider that all of them are not the same that the first version, obviously one of us don´t understand what a remake is. I guess, for your excellent work, that you have a lot of experience working with movies. I saw that you are doing an excellent work here in Wikipedia, then maybe you can remake (it seems paradoxical) the article about what a remake mean related with cinema. But in my opinion, those kind of movie which are no contributing in a really new perspective, script... Shouldn´t be consider new movies, rather remakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.107.111 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think it would be best to discuss this at the film article's Talk page where other editors can offer their opinions. Essentially though, I feel if we're going to claim that the 2002 film is a remake of the 1988 film then we need a reliable source that says that. The new Amazing Spider-Man film franchise is not, for instance, a "remake" of the Raimi films to my understanding of how the term is meant to be used. As it is the 2002 film article doesn't even mention the 1988 film, which to my mind is further evidence that it wasn't a consideration. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
It´s great Doniago. Unfortunately I don´t have much time to start an article in the Talk page. Maybe the best idea would be to rethink this part in the Wiki article remake: However, the term generally pertains to a new version of an old film. Can I wrote you a private message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.107.111 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and started a discussion on the matter here. You're welcome to participate. As I've said, my belief is that we need a source establishing that the film is a remake. Arguing over the definition is, to me, somewhat beside the point. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Numbers station
You tagged Numbers station for better citations two years ago. There are now 44,[1] up from 25.[2] Would you remove the tag now, or move it to specific sections or claims? – Fayenatic London 12:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't do either one. There are still multiple sections with information that isn't sourced, and given that this is a moderately technical article (or at least, the statements lacking sources are not what I would consider "general knowledge") additional references should be provided. I would rather leave the article itself tagged then tag multiple sections. DonIago (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Dont Feat the Reaper
See this. It is a hard rock song. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~,
- Works for me. If you want to add that to the article, assuming you haven't already, I think that'll satisfy the source concern. Not sure why it was tagged to begin with, possibly there was some genre-warring going on there, and sourcing is the best way to settle such things. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, saying it's cited in a different article isn't appropriate per WP:CIRCULAR. I'll leave it alone for now, but I really think the best course would be to include the ref. DonIago (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it was cited in a different article. It is cited later on in the article. I see no reason why every genre listed needs to be cited when it is commonly accepted to be the case. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- If it's cited later in the same article, that's acceptable too. Wasn't clear based on what you'd said. And every genre doesn't need to be cited, but when information has been challenged? It does. WP:BURDEN is clear about that. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, your edit summary said "it's actually cited in the pop matters article". The article for the song doesn't mention Pop Matters, and the Pop Matters article does not mention this song. I have reinserted the tag. Please provide a more clear reference or discuss your rationale for why one is not required at the Talk page for the article. As the genre has been challenged, per WP:BURDEN it should be cited or removed. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing this up. I got tripped up on the fact that it's actually PopMatters. I'd searched with a space between the words based on your previous edit summary and didn't realize that Pop Matters redirects. Anyway, looks good now; thanks again! DonIago (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it was cited in a different article. It is cited later on in the article. I see no reason why every genre listed needs to be cited when it is commonly accepted to be the case. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Colorado State University
Hi Doniago, you left a message after editing Colorado State University about a post on Doug Given. Thanks for the advice! I resubmitted my entry onto the page and added a reference like you suggested. Let me know if you think it needs anything extra. Again, I really appreciate the help. Kawika (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)