User talk:Doniago/Archive 31

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 25

←

Archive 29

→

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.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
237	Area codes 303 and 720 (talk)	Add sources
2,242	Cuban missile crisis (talk)	Add sources
23	Wisconsin–Whitewater Warhawks (talk)	Add sources
707	Doug (talk)	Add sources
37	Cliff Simon (talk)	Add sources
97	Kumar Pallana (talk)	Add sources
512	Justice Society of America (talk)	Cleanup
248	Swept Away (2002 film) (talk)	Cleanup
212	Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) (talk)	Cleanup
65	Goliath (Gargoyles) (talk)	Expand
336	Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's (talk)	Expand
605	The Mummy (franchises) (talk)	Expand
21	Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
40	Two to Go (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
4,808	Wes Anderson (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
9	Highmaster (talk)	Merge
143	Arkillo (talk)	Merge
48	Amon Sur (talk)	Merge
14	Unity (Shinedown song) (talk)	Wikify
297	Sinestro Corps (talk)	Wikify
248	Alternative versions of Superman (talk)	Wikify
4	Penelope Austin (talk)	Orphan
6	Abdelkarim Badjadja (talk)	Orphan
7	1970s in Brazil (talk)	Orphan
63	The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (1992 video game) (talk)	Stub
33	Mara Hobel (talk)	Stub
21	Bodak (talk)	Stub
1,032	Isaac Hempstead-Wright (talk)	Stub
7	Berbalang (talk)	Stub
20	Abomination (Dungeons & Dragons) (talk)	Stub

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) 00:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

motors with permanent magnets

Dear Doniago,

I would appreciate your comments at talk: electric motor#motors with permanent magnets.

Forgive me for reverting a recent edit you made to synchronous motor. Honestly, the main reason I reverted was because it broke the link in that talk page discussion.

Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. --DavidCary (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I wish I knew what to tell you there. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about either electricity or motors and consequently don't think I could offer a qualified opinion beyond "use the link which seems most relevant to the linking article", which I'm guessing isn't particular helpful. It's unfortunate that two closely-related articles have sections that appear to cover the same content(?).

No problem with your revert on SM, as you did provide sources. Sourcing for that article has been a major headache in the past, and as you can see the article (at this point) has been tagged for needing references since January of this year, so we definitely don't want to add anything that isn't properly referenced.

Hope this helps in some manner, and thanks for getting in touch! DonIago (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Thank you for your understanding"?

Yeah, I don't understand. So let me get this straight:

1) Person adds information to article

2) Other person reverts it because it's unsourced

3) First person adds the information again but this time with a direct, official, and reliable source

4) Other person takes it away, citing a WP policy that doesn't apply because the added info comes from the episode in question

5) First person reverts the reversion, stating that the policy doesn't apply

6) Other person reverts that too and decides the first person should be possibly blocked from editing due to a pointless edit war

What sense does that make? -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 20:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The info you added is not from the episode, it's original research. You're claiming that something that occurs in the episode is an homage because you believe it to be. Provide a source that explicitly states it's an homage. The episode itself doesn't do that. DonIago (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tetris is a game with coloured blocks that come in shapes specifically shown in the episode, and in Tetris, completing a row causes it to disappear, as shown in the episode. In the Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake, when a pod person sees a human, they point and scream, much like the robot in that episode. That's called putting two and two together. But nevertheless, I found a source. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 22:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

What you just described, "putting two and two together", is exactly what synthesis is and exactly what we should not be doing. We should be using sources that explicitly refer to the information we're adding.

Additionally, the source you provided does not mention Tetris or Body Snatchers, at least not that I saw. Please either provide a source that does reference those or remove the information. You are welcome to discuss this at the article's Talk page if you feel additional opinions are needed. I'll hold off on making any changes myself for at least 12 hours. DonIago (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Paulin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Paulin. 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, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

hello

i added the goonies because the fratellis are italian americans Wikiman103 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay...but the fact that they're Italian-Americans isn't relevant to the film in any way, is it? I mean, they could just as easily be Asian and the film would still play out the same. The film doesn't comment on their nationality that I recall either. I'd recommend raising this at the article's Talk page to see what other editors think. DonIago (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Death is a Bitch

Sorry, Twinkle cut off your edit summary, could you finish explaining?--Laun chba ller 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the article's Talk page, but the gist is that there's a consensus with regards to American Dad articles that if the article is little more than a plot summary and reviews, without any clear (and reliably-sourced) discussion of how it's a stand-out episode in some manner, then the article should generally be redirected or expanded. I'm not saying that Family Guy articles should necessarily be handled the same way, but there should probably be a discussion about that, and until that time leaving the article tagged isn't causing any harm in any case. If you'd like to discuss it further, additional opinions at the Talk page would certainly be welcome! DonIago (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. 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) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Don and I think I resolved it with your helpful suggestions !!

Thank you, Don for being patient and helpful in your kind suggestions - I went back and reviewed my research - I emailed the director of the music video who confirmed each of Slipknot's bandmembers' character portrayal of the respective characters in the film The Shining - I also added the correct date as to when the source was published (which I forgot to do first time sorry). It now reads with more clarity. The musical artist did receive a Grammy nomination for their video work. Thank you again for taking the time to being willing to politely and professionally educate those of us who are trying hard to work within the guidelines and add to the awesomeness that is Wiki !!! Cheers and happy weekend, Steve

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.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
97	Doubly fed electric machine (talk)	Add sources
652	Irish American (talk)	Add sources
517	Bottle Rocket (talk)	Add sources
194	Squirrel-cage rotor (talk)	Add sources
845	Jack Ryan (character) (talk)	Add sources
13	Dragons of the Highlord Skies (talk)	Add sources
528	The Naked Gun (talk)	Cleanup
2,104	Electric motor (talk)	Cleanup
32	Gargoyles (video game) (talk)	Cleanup
49	Kathleen Gati (talk)	Expand
73	Demona (talk)	Expand
183	Golden age of American animation (talk)	Expand
21	War of the Lance (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6	Boulder Weekly (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,840	Spider-Man 2 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
420	Three-phase (talk)	Merge
35	Lego Spider-Man (talk)	Merge
76	Electric machine (talk)	Merge
265	The Mosquito Coast (talk)	Wikify
151	Permanent magnet synchronous generator (talk)	Wikify
5	Shottle Bop (talk)	Wikify
5	Linear transformation in rotating electrical machines (talk)	Orphan
3	FAM control of induction motor (talk)	Orphan
5	Motor-CAD (talk)	Orphan
2,900	Noel Fisher (talk)	Stub
97	Marshall Manesh (talk)	Stub
8	Kender, Gully Dwarves, and Gnomes (talk)	Stub
23	Allison Abbate (talk)	Stub
39	Robert Yeoman (talk)	Stub
8	Frank Paur (talk)	Stub

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) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic Mr. Fox-related

For the synopsis of Fantastic Mr. Fox, I had to expand it to detail what underground animals were featured and add in the part that Rat was involved in. I had to add the character section to the page (since some other pages have character info) because nobody else has added it. When I read the book on my mother's Kindle at the time when my mother was attending a Kiwanis Convention in Warwick, Rhode Island, I have noticed some differences in the book where some of them included characters exclusive to the film version (the differences between both version should be added to the film page at a later date since some other adaptions to books and comic books have this section). Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, you didn't have to do anything. It's my opinion that the information you added isn't necessary to help one understand the plot of the book. If you disagree I would recommend raising the matter at the article's Talk page so that other editors can offer their perspectives, but I noticed you've been asked to refrain from refactoring plot summaries as you did in this instance previously. DonIago (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Keeping it civil

You said you talked to Jack about his conduct. Thanks. I appreciate it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In any discussion I'm a part of where I see one or more disputants going off the rails via tactlessness I'll suggest that they reconsider their words, provided I find myself invested enough. Among other things I don't think it's "proper" to resolve a dispute via the blocking of an editor due to conduct, unless the conduct itself is a primary factor in the dispute. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

While I wouldn't mind if Jack got blocked (and I'm sure that's no shocker), I feel he's being deliberately inflammatory with all the cussing and I think bringing him up on AN/I might get him to stop. Just asking him hasn't done it. I've seen things like that happen before. I've never brought anyone up on AN/I myself before, but I've seen it work out that way.

Oh wait a second, you think I'm trying to resolve the content dispute by bringing Jack up on AN/I? Heck no! A long time ago, I decided that two please-stop-calling-my-efforts-feces were enough and that I'd report him if he ever did it again. The timing is entirely Jack's.

Don't take my word for it. Take my track record: Who proposed working out a consensus filing text in advance? Who made changes to an RSN filing when another editor felt it was biased? Who promoted an RfC at talk pages that were more likely to bring in "Nos" than "Yesses"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your motives. If I felt Jack had engaged in personal attacks or other disruptive behavior that merited a block I would support your report (especially given that I asked him to reconsider his phrasing previously myself), but I would still consider it regrettable that the content dispute had to some degree been short-circuited by conduct issues. I hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie. 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) 00:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album). 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, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The question about "List of films featuring time loops"

May I ask why Premature (2014) was removed from the article "List of films featuring time loops"? Isn't this article for including any films containing time loops just as its description ("This list of films featuring time loops provides the names and brief synopses of films in which time loops are a prominent plot device.") unambiguously states mentioning no rules for possible exceptions which are to be excluded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindeveler (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:IINFO list entries should have some indication of significance. RT doesn't satisfy that as they are in and of themselves a database; being listed there doesn't indicate any sort of significance. If you review the other entries you'll see they are, or should be, cited to sources that discuss them in some manner beyond the mere fact of their existence. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well... RT has 17 reviews which do exactly what you said is necessary, i.e. "discuss [the movie] in some manner beyond the mere fact of [its] existence". If that doesn't count, what does? I am sorry for my stupidity, I just can't see this thin line between "significant enough" and "not significant enough".

For example, if I cite the Variety review ( http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/film-review-premature-1201257078/ ) - the source that seems to have been just fine for the Salvage movie from the same list - will it suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindeveler (talk • contribs) 03:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the Variety review mention that the film involves time looping? If so, then that should be fine. DonIago (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the review does mention the main character having to "repeat an eventful day" because "each time he ejaculates [...] he is magically transported backward in time to start the morning, in bed, all over again". Then I guess I will go and put the movie back in the article with the Variety reference. Thank you for your help. Gosh, how much I love these wonderful formalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindeveler (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever said building an encyclopedia was easy. :) DonIago (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not really about easiness... it's about valuing single experts' opinions (Variety review) as criteria of significance more than figures (imdb grades from thousands of users or multiple RT reviews). This way nobody-knows-about movie can become significant just because some critic watched it in some VIP cinema during its one and only demonstration and then wrote a review. It has a long story with a tendency of people to value single examples over statistics and listening to experts' opinions way too much (including those very experts from famous Tetlock's study who turned to be not the smartest ones despite their high positions). Anyway, sorry for bothering, I just tend to see red every time I see something irrational from the scientific point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindeveler (talk • contribs) 04:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have problems with the policies, I'm sure your opinions would be welcomed at the corresponding Talk pages for said policies. That's about the best suggestion I have though, sorry. DonIago (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Apology

Hiya, I wanted to apologize for this [1] -
I've always had a problem with edit warring but this year I've dealt with it far far better and basically when the 30 was declined it felt like "If I war I get blocked, If I do something better nothing gets done" ... that and I tend to get pissed off easily hence the summary!,
Anyway I personally apologize for it and it was nothing against you,
Anyway have a nice day and Happy Editing :)
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, and if there's anything you think I can do you're welcome to get in touch. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and ofcourse same here

- If you have any problems you're more than welcome to come to my talkpage, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)