User talk:Doniago/Archive 87
 | 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 80 | ← | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 |
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 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
I thought I was nearly the only one on Earth thinking that Emma Bovary suicides in the Flaubert novel. Her name is not written Bovari or any other kind of spelling because there are so-called rules on Common and Official names. Umberto Eco learned me that you cannot (easily) change what it is already written. So I do not understand why Ennis del Mar was often misspelled. thanks for that.--Arorae (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is a little complicated by the film and text apparently using different capitalization; I'm sure whomever created the article used the film as their starting point (but maybe not!), or they just assumed the D should be capitalized. Either way, the editor who's been responding to me has come off as a bit determined to miss the point; I thought the intent of my examples was pretty clear. Regardless, you're welcome. DonIago (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- this editor will never stop replying (or change his idea, POV-Pushing). Looks like intellectual dishonesty. He also added the Movie template on the Opera.--Arorae (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say you should open a move request (maybe wait a day or two to see whether anyone else chimes in). Make sure you link back to the Talk page conversation, because I think the editor is being hopelessly pedantic. I'd like to see others get involved, but I'm not sure that will happen without escalation. DonIago (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- this editor will never stop replying (or change his idea, POV-Pushing). Looks like intellectual dishonesty. He also added the Movie template on the Opera.--Arorae (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
edit war
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also read wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I am wondering why you reverted my recent edits in this article? Carptrash (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Because you didn't provide sources to verify that the films are considered disaster films, as required by WP:LISTVERIFY. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
founder vs flounder
Just in case you were curious:
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founder
- "Founder" has a broader, figurative sense, too - if your marriage or your career is foundering it isn't doing well and is therefore headed downward.
But perhaps MJ was floundering, so I edited the article accordingly.
It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think "her career was floundering" is proper English. It's not necessarily headed downward, but she's struggling. Alternately we could just say her career is struggling, or otherwise use different phrasing. :) Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on Wikipedia:Third opinion
Thanks kindly for reminding User:Sankura not to remove my request for third party arbitration. I hate to bother, but can you point me in the right way to perhaps getting another editor with some kind of authority to look over their conduct? While I think their intentions are good, this editor's desire to exert total control over not only the edits at List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich, but even my request for third-party arbitration are not conducive to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I am genuinely at a loss as to why this person is behaving this way, have attempted to work and reason with them, but to no avail. I'm uncertain how one can solve this matter. Any input would be deeply appreciated. Thank you again.CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have been deliberately misrepresenting the edit I made to List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich, over and over and over again. You entered the fray there by replacing what I had written with the useless text "This is a list of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich", and then had the gall to call me lazy for putting together a superior lead section. Your description of the supposed dispute on WP:3O was a flat out lie. You have not "attempted to work and reason" with me; you've attempted to slander me and disrupt my work to improve an article. Your behaviour is sickening. If you are unable to stop your compulsive lying about my edit and about my behaviour ("desire to exert total control" is utter bullshit) then I'll seek to have your conduct examined. Sankura (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2020 (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 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The Stand
There are no sources anywhere on that article re: the cast, but here you go: https://news.avclub.com/the-apocalypse-arrives-this-winter-cbs-all-access-conf-1844841600 SouthofHeaven1981 (talk • contribs)
- Please note that new threads should generally be placed at the bottom of a user's Talk page. That said, I'm also uncertain what this is in reference to. Can you please provide an appropriate diff? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2020 (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 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Magnificent Ambersons edit reversed
You reverted my addition to the article because IMDb is frowned upon as a reference source. Ultimately, the film (The Magnificent Ambersons) is itself the reference—it's right in the picture, a movie poster in the background advertising a film starring Jack Holt, the real life actor father of Tim Holt, the actor appearing in the scene. So what is the best way to cite a reference for something that is somewhat self-apparent in the source material? I can't cite the film itself, right? Your suggestions are welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernalbogneris (talk • contribs)
- Rather than presenting the information in a way that could be construed as mere trivia, ideally you should find an independent reliable source that discusses the poster showing up in the film and gives it some sort of context. A source other than IMDb would probably be fine as long as it meets the criteria at WP:RS. The gist is we shouldn't just be presenting an indiscriminate list of neat things in the film, but should provide some background and context. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Almost Famous
I re-added my content, referring directly to the Supermensh documentary itself, not it's IMDB page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giff2005 (talk • contribs)
- It's still speculation - "This incident which Crowe witnessed himself most likely inspired the plane turbulence scene." According to whom? Has Cameron himself said this incident inspired him? We shouldn't be adding guesses about inspiration to Wikipedia articles. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
You have problems
|
You have problems |
| Hey how about doing something productive and deleting spam and things that violate the rules instead of deleting things that don't cause any problems. Whiterain25showmewhereIasked (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC) |
I think if you ask at WT:FILM you'll find that many editors feel that unwarranted violations of WP:FILMPLOT are in fact a problem, and generally an easily-avoided one. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't Fear The Reaper reversion
Hello Doniago. Is there any particular reason you reverted only my uncited entry? Why is the uncited entry regarding the song being covered still listed? Did you do any diligence whatsoever as to whether the version that i listed existed? Did you consider my history as a long standing and trustworthy Wikipedian before reverting my edit? Why didn't you simply add a 'citation needed' tag and message me? I've undone your reversion and will find some sources. But i find the way that you have dealt with this to be misjudged, at best. Julianhall (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel that way. In my experience adding a 'citation needed' tag frequently results in nothing getting done and the tagged information ultimately being deleted regardless. I will do so if I'm unable to identify the editor who added the unsourced information, but in cases where I can identify the editor, I feel it's best to remove the information and notify them. As evidenced, it did get your attention.
- In this particular case, no I didn't look for additional uncited entries, because I was specifically reviewing recent changes on my watchlist at the time. Nor am I under any obligation to do so. That obviously doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed as well. Please let me know if you would like me to do so. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Metacritic
Hi, Doniago, With regard to your recent reversion of my edit to Babe, a 1995 film, I have a few questions I'd like to see discussed. You say that Metacritic is frequently cited in film articles, but that's hardly valid in light of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The WP article on Metacritic admits that some regard it as unreliable. A discussion I found elsewhere earlier this year said Metacritic was not reliable for films made before it was set up in 2000, but I can't now locate it. I fail to see why what claims to be a general encyclopedia needs to quote two aggregator sites that are generally regarded as not so different from each other. WP is not a specialist film publication. Again, from what I see, Metacritic seems to be most significant in the area of game videos (and that's where it is most vehemently discussed). My inclination is therefore to revert anonymous IPs who quote Metacritic for films earlier than 2000. I'm interested to hear what can be advanced in favour of what seems at best redundant and at worst unreliable. Has there been any discussion of the question at Teahouse level or in connection with guidelines on sources? Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please raise your questions at MOS:FILM. I think if you look at film articles in general you will see that Metacritic is widely cited alongside Rotten Tomatoes. If we're going to second-guess that then there should be multiple editors involved in the conversation. MOS:FILM does say that Metacritic is citable; there are caveats in terms of how it should best be utilized, but I didn't see any outright prohibitions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2020 (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 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Cedar Rapids
David here. I recently added a reference to a movie on the Cedar Rapids wiki page. You reverted it due to lack of a reliable source and suggested I add a citation. Of course I could add a link to IMDB, but my edits included a reference to The Final Season wiki entry which states that the movie was filmed in Cedar Rapids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.141.215.32 (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- You actually shouldn't add a link to IMDb, as the site is generally considered not reliable. Rather, I would suggest that you copy whatever source is used at The Final Season article. Simply linking to another article isn't appropriate for verifiability purposes per WP:CIRCULAR. Thanks for coming to me with your concern! DonIago (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the proposed deletion on Unfaithful (House). A lot of these episodes are unsourced (see List of House episodes). Articles like House Divided, Both Sides Now, and Human Error only have a plot summary and no sources. Should I nominate them for deletion? Koridas 📣 21:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there Koridas, thanks for reaching out to me. My view is that any article for an episode of television that barely does anything other than discuss the plot should be converted to a redirect. I prefer to target articles that have already been tagged for needing improvement so that it's clear that editors have had ample time to make improvements and have failed to do so. On the other hand, in the past editors have said that even proposing deletion should be unnecessary. But then you nominate an article someone cares about, they take down the nomination and you have to go to AfD. It would be great if there was a clear-cut policy on this, but I have my doubts that it will ever happen. If you want to be as WP:BOLD as possible you could even just go ahead and redirect them and see whether anyone even notices, but you'd likely have to be prepared to defend that choice in the future. I hope my non-answer is helpful! DonIago (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)