User talk:Doniago/Archive 34
 | 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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
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) 23:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
List of Star Trek characters
Hello,
In this edit to List of Star Trek characters (G-M) half a year ago, you removed all non-sourced characters from the section "G". Nothing was ever done to any other section. What's so special about the section "G"? The list now looks very strange. And if we were to remove all non-sourced characters from every section, the whole list would only include a couple of characters, which would make it look very silly. JIP | Talk 12:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- There was a pretty thorough discussion of this here. As far as why I may have only removed characters listed under a single letter, I may have had other demands on my time. As you said it was half a year ago. :) The list may or may not look "silly" if it was restructured in accordance with the linked discussion, but it would at least be more encyclopedic. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- In any event, thank you for bringing this to my attention; I've removed additional characters with no third-party sourcing provided to establish their significance. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
You gave me a warning about editing wars but didn't present a similar warning to User:Moovi, even though he made the first reversion. I am respectfully requesting that you deliver the same warning to him and serve as a Third Opinion Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Third_Opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.26.88 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you feel that Moovi (talk · contribs)'s actions deserve an edit-warring you are welcome to issue one. As it is I am uncertain what issue you are referring to as you did not provide any pertinent links or diffs. In fact I would not even be aware of who was leaving me this message as you neglected to sign it, which you can do by adding four tildes(~) to the end of your message. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was able to track down the issues you're referring to, and frankly I chose to warn you about edit-warring because you were leaving threatening and rude edit summaries ("I reject your accusation"? Really?) instead of, IMO, making an effort to work collaboratively with Moovi and reach a consensus. I appreciate that you started a discussion at the Talk page, but you should have done so after your edits were first reverted.
- If Moovi exhibits an unwillingness to abide by whatever consensus is ultimately reached at the Talk page I will warn them. DonIago (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
What?
What are you talking about? I didn't make any threats but if you are referring to my report on the wikia then that's not between you or me sir so if an actual admin have a problem then ill actually be concerned. Beyonder (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod
- I'm referring to your threatening to report any editor who posts something to your Talk page that you don't care for. I thought that was pretty obvious, but my apologies if I was unclear. DonIago (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Please undo your revert or use talk page. Blanket revert of added material without providing an edit comment is not condoned. --rtc (talk)
- I included "OR" in my edit summary because I feel your edit constitutes original research. You are welcome to re-add your material with a reliable source. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Did you dutifully look for obvious sources before deleting? It is good practice to do so. How do you check before you consider something original research? Simply a formalistic check for whether some source has been tacked to the statement? If so, please try to be less formalistic. It is quite frustrating to see important material deleted in such a way. --rtc (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- With regards to newly-added material I tend to assume the editor inserting the material is best-situated to provide a reference.
- If you were able to find a source so easily, why did you not include it when adding your information originally? Consider that a somewhat rhetorical question. If you had then this conversation would have been unnecessary. Especially when editing an article that has proven to be controversial in the past, heightened care should be taken to ensure your information is verifiable. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am very busy with many things. Sometimes I skim over an article, see some crucial point missing that I know from background knowledge without knowing the exact source, and I simply add the missing information, hoping for others to build further on it -- not deleting in a formalistic fashion. I suggest suggest rethinking your strategy about newly-added material. First check for the obvious sources, and only if you can't find any, delete. Don't forget the goal of Wikipedia, which is to be an encylopedia, not a formalistic game like chess. --rtc (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Did you dutifully look for obvious sources before deleting? It is good practice to do so. How do you check before you consider something original research? Simply a formalistic check for whether some source has been tacked to the statement? If so, please try to be less formalistic. It is quite frustrating to see important material deleted in such a way. --rtc (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:PATH (Toronto)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PATH (Toronto). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Backdraft
Solving the Five Pillars of Annoyance by a Kid Half Your Age 1. Undid revision to Backdraft. 2. Will undo revisions again if they are removed again. 3. Three-reversion rule will then trip. 4. This will then notify administration of the edit war. 5. I've been here for years, am 72 years old, have been in Hollywood over 50 years and taught newcomers in the university system for over 30 years. Go bother somebody else.
Please comment on Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 2 November 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) 19:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The Bourne Supremacy
I have received your message regarding my unsourced change to the Critical Reception area of The Bourne Supremacy (film) article. The reason I didn't put a source was because the information I required was from the exact same source that was already cited. The website cited tends to change over periods of time, so I was just simply updating a few stats to make it up-to-date and current. I'm sorry if what I did created any confusion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.237.239 (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, my concern was actually that you added Ebert's review without providing a citation for it. Also, we generally prefer to include some sort of quote rather than just the star rating as a way of providing additional context. "Roger Ebert gave the film 3 out of 4 stars, noting that "You'd think this film would suck, but it actually keeps you riveted to your seat for its entirety"", as an example. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: Noah Revert Oct 2014
Hi, just saw the message about the revert. I agree, for the most part, I remember thinking the plot summary as a whole needed quite a bit of pruning but I hadn't slept in a while at the time. I do want to put back two things, though. The change I made to the part that mentions cannibalism, simply because cannabalism never happens in the movie. It's the fact that girls are being kidnapped and traded in for animals that are then eaten alive that disgusts Noah. Also the last paragraph I wrote that mentions Noah's alcoholism, survivor's guilt and forgiving himself thanks to Ila's reasoning which is the most important part of the movie. From what I've read, the whole survivor's guilt thing was a major motivation to making the film, hence why the events that convinced him humanity must die and the reasoning behind his self-forgiveness are so important. MatrixM (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with things being added back into the plot summary per se, but if it's going to expand the summary significantly beyond the 700 word maximum recommended in the guidelines then I believe a consensus to disregard the guideline should be reached at the Talk page first. DonIago (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Rollback
Wtf was this about? If you want your rollback rights removed, you can just ask an admin to remove them—it's less hassle than than rolling back admins on project pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would you care to rephrase that in a more civil tone, or would you prefer I just assume you were blowing off steam and pretend I didn't see this? DonIago (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Goinia incident
- It is also on the Thine Own Self page without any sources and has been there for years. Did you remove that too?--66.7.139.222 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Southwest Airlines at PHX
Hello and thanks for your feedback, as regarding the removal of content in relation to Southwest Airlines operations at Phoenix involving flights to both Cleveland and Dallas-Love, it was done in order to clean up the page and make it look more presentable and eye-pleasing. I understand referencing sites when new flights are added or about to commence in order to make sure that what is being shown is as factual as possible, I however notice that other pages delete both (start date) and the reference once the flights have commenced, as leaving the reference in afterwards just makes it less pleasing.
Mediation committee
Would you be interested in applying for membership on the Mediation Committee? I'm Chairperson there and would nominate you if you are interested. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Heya TM. I'm flattered that you'd approach me about this. I'm going to need a few days to think about it, especially as I'm currently battling a case of plague, though I did start skimming the relevant pages. Anyhow, whether or not this goes anywhere, I do appreciate you coming to me with it, and I'll let you know what I think when I'm more coherent. DonIago (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Take your time, but when you decide either {{ping}} me here or drop a note on my talk page, please. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Gargoyles debate, listen to me.
Thanks for keeping an eye out for vandalism. Its Zarbon, I decided to create an alternative account just so Shane wouldn't have me on his computer. I am being met with constant trouble by a banned editor, Wiki-star (talk · contribs · logs). I am looking at a period of over 10 years at the time being. He keeps creating various sock puppets, likely performing cross-wiki vandalism as we speak. He follows me around, hounding me in other words, to either revert my contributions or just plain vandalize. Now going back to out Gargoyles discussion, show me where it isn't ok to educate readers on an exclusive Wal-Mart edition. Policies aside, because you haven't presented any actual reasons other than your opinion. You may reply on my other username. Thanks for listening, Zarbon
- Regarding the issues with the banned user, if they are sockpuppeting you should refer the matter to WP:SPI. I'm not an admin so there's nothing I can do about it in any case. Sorry to hear he's going after you.
- Regarding the Gargoyles matter...as I stated, I don't believe the Wal-Mart information should be included unless a third-party source took note of it. I bought Gargoyles on Amazon well over a year ago, so what's the big deal that it's at Wal-Mart now? When the addition of material is contested, whether it is included, barring policy matters, should be determined by WP:CONSENSUS, and there isn't one right now as far as I'm aware. If you still feel strongly that the information should be added, there's numerous options discussed at WP:DR, though my first step would likely be to contact a relevant project page (see the top of the Gargoyles Talk page) and ask for additional opinions there.
- Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your information is helpful, but when I tell you that I have tried contacting othe sysops like Deskana and Favonian on stopping this vandal, you're going to have to trust me. I have a feeling, Doniago, I know who is really behind it all. It is either Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · logs) or Recoome (talk · contribs · logs), but I wouldn't be surprised if Wiki-star was the puppet master all along. Now I will think about contacting a third party to back me up on Gargoyles, but you alleging that the material is WP:CRUFT isn't helping anyone. I will add the copyright tag to the image if that's what it takes, you also tend to get me angry sometimes, and I don't like to be angry, and will never stop following the rules. What else, dear comrade, do you have to say for yourself? Zarbon
- In cases of sockpuppetry, going through WP:SPI is a much better approach than contacting single admins or sysops. SPI is specifically intended for addressing sockpuppetry concerns, so it should really be the first place you go. In any case, as I said, there's nothing I can do about the matter, so while you're welcome to share your frustrations with me, and I do sympathize, that's about all I can do to help.
- I have every right to express my opinion that the material you wish to add to Gargoyles isn't appropriate on whatever grounds I wish to bring up, just as you have the right to disagree with me. That's how Wikipedia works: when two editors disagree on whether material is appropriate for inclusion, they discuss it to try to reach a compromise, and bring in other parties (as outlined at WP:DR) if they can't solve it between themselves. I'm sorry if you're upset that I don't agree with you, but I'm not going to stop feeling the material is trivial simply because you ask me to, and it's not really cool to ask other editors to stop expressing their feeling on a matter just because you don't want to hear it.
- Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- With all due respect my good sir, I understand what you're trying to say, but all it is is WP:BIAS, and we typically ignore pointless ideas if they have no merit. What about all the other pages that mention only-exclusive and useful information on DVDs? Should we start by deleting everything we simply don't agree with? I admire your WP:BOLD words, but to do that what I've conveyed will only detriment the value of such a resourceful encyclopedia. Well I no longer will fight tooth and whatever for my inclusion of WP:SOURCE material. May take further action when I log into my other account. Blessings to all... Zarbon
- Your information is helpful, but when I tell you that I have tried contacting othe sysops like Deskana and Favonian on stopping this vandal, you're going to have to trust me. I have a feeling, Doniago, I know who is really behind it all. It is either Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · logs) or Recoome (talk · contribs · logs), but I wouldn't be surprised if Wiki-star was the puppet master all along. Now I will think about contacting a third party to back me up on Gargoyles, but you alleging that the material is WP:CRUFT isn't helping anyone. I will add the copyright tag to the image if that's what it takes, you also tend to get me angry sometimes, and I don't like to be angry, and will never stop following the rules. What else, dear comrade, do you have to say for yourself? Zarbon