User talk:Doniago/Archive 9
 | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Talkback
Message added 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NebY (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Plot vs. Summary
Please don't engage a revert war. Discuss your opinion in Talk:Back_to_the_Future instead of deciding for everyone. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly is there to discuss? Per MOS:FILM the correct section title is "Plot". Doniago (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, apparently there is something to discuss given the pre-existing conversation there. That page wasn't on my watchlist and I was unaware that the issue was considered this contentious. In any case I've made my opinion that the article should adhere to MOS standards clear there, and if we're going to make an exception (for no outstanding reason that I'm aware of) then a discussion at the MOS's Talk page may be more appropriate than at a film-specific Talk page. Doniago (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Given that I was not a contributor to the film article that you specifically cited, it strikes me as somewhat inappropriate that you appear to suggest I am engaging in an edit war on said article. If the discussion there is (as I assume) pertinent to other film articles, then I hope the Talk pages for those articles are referencing the BttF Talk page for reference. If not, then I'm not sure why you brought this up to me in the first place. In any case, discussions intended to apply to multiple articles should generally not occur on the Talk page for a specific article; a project page or such would be a more appropriate location. That being the case, you may wish to notify relevant project pages that there is a discussion in-progress, if you consider this issue of particular concern. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's the fact that we had a discussion going regarding the name of the header and you changed it without even trying to state your opinion in the discussion. To me, well, that was kind of rude. I was not aware that you weren't subscribed to this BTTF talk page, so that explains it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Couldn't exactly state my opinion in a discussion I wasn't aware existed, no. (smile) I've worked on BttF3, but have never touched the pages for the other two films and consequently don't watch them, so being referred to a discussion on the first film's page, especially with a suggestion that I was edit-warring...a little irregular. For what it's worth though, we actually seem to feel the same way about the underlying topic. Next time my suggestion would be something more along the lines of, "I noticed you've been reverting changes to x...please be aware that there's a discussion regarding those types of changes at y. Until that discussion reaches a consensus, please refrain from making additional changes. Thanks!" More AGF'y, and makes it clear that while the discussion wouldn't appear to involve the page being worked on, the topic relates to it. Anyway, I'm dealing with a bad case of con crud right now, so coherence isn't my strong suit, but I'm glad we cleared this up and that we seem to be on the same page now...no pun intended. Doniago (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's the fact that we had a discussion going regarding the name of the header and you changed it without even trying to state your opinion in the discussion. To me, well, that was kind of rude. I was not aware that you weren't subscribed to this BTTF talk page, so that explains it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Admin Help Requested - Conflict getting out of hand
{{admin help}} Could someone please take a look at this and deal with it in an appropriate manner? There's a conflict that seems to be escalating and I'd really like to see it get defused before things go any further. Generally I'd issue a warning (or two) myself, but I was really hoping things could be resolved peacefully. Thanks for the assist. Doniago (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you have started a walk out - two more editors have declared out. Sadly, there's sometimes a stage in a debate that further debate serves no purpose - we even have a page for it - WP:STICK. Maybe you have just picked the correct time to withdraw. Not sure there's much we can do, we can always slap everyone with WP:CIVIL warnings - it might just wind them up some more. I'll leave up the help, maybe someone else will have a different view. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't blame the others for walking out..I just hope they're only leaving the specific discussion and not WP itself. For better or worse, the whole thing ended up exploding on ANI in any case, though oddly my original concern, which was that my help request had gone unacknowledged for over 12 hours, fell by the wayside in favor of other matters. Anyway, thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad someone did. Doniago (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, I'm removing the adminhelp - incidents like this need to be reported to WP:ANI as they happen for (usually) faster service. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- If that's the case I think the template may need to be tweaked (which was my original reason for going to ANI despite how far afield the ensuing conversation wandered). The template message provided strongly implies that a response will be "swiftly forthcoming". Doniago (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, I'm removing the adminhelp - incidents like this need to be reported to WP:ANI as they happen for (usually) faster service. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't blame the others for walking out..I just hope they're only leaving the specific discussion and not WP itself. For better or worse, the whole thing ended up exploding on ANI in any case, though oddly my original concern, which was that my help request had gone unacknowledged for over 12 hours, fell by the wayside in favor of other matters. Anyway, thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad someone did. Doniago (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"anyone cares enough"
Regarding this comment, the page is open to anyone to edit. You left some stuff on the talkpage, which frankly isn't great stuff, but could have been added to the article. Going around tagging and saying no cares about pages is ludicrous when we have millions of articles and about 100 people actually writing content. As far as I know I'm one of the only editors to write about children's literature, and no I don't like the book, but that's immaterial - when it was published it was hugely successful, as much so as Harry Potter so it's an important page. As for finding information about it, it's not easily found with a google search. It involves going to the library, finding the books, and in some cases ordering them through ILL. And then the books need to be read, the information synthesized and added to the article. All of this takes time. I welcome having you do it as I work full-time and have lots of other wiki commitments at the moment. If you don't want to, that's fine too, but don't say "oh well no one's done anything, so no one cares and sources don't exist anyway". None of that is true. In my view tagging a page achieves nothing. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please review WP:BURDEN. Information should not be added to articles if reliable sourcing cannot be provided. In this case the information was part of the article, which had been tagged since 2007 for needing sourcing. After over three years, it seems reasonable to move the information to the Talk page until such time as sourcing can be found to substantiate it and satisfy the verifiability requirement. As the information is on the Talk page and has not been deleted, interested editors have the opportunity to find appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the contribution history of the page and go through the history. I never ever added any content. I intend to add content but as I'm trying to explain, it will take time, as in time finding sources, reading them, and writing the content. In the meantime, the existing content can and has been sourced with about 20 minutes work - so again, why the tag? I know perfectly well what V stands for, so no need to link. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure whether the above comment stands in light of the note I left at the article's Talk page? Doniago (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- You asked me here to review burden as though I'd added unsourced material to the page. I'm responding to that. As for the comment on the talkpage - there's no need to thank for 20 minutes of work that was easily done. I took down the tag because I knew it could be done easily. Within seconds the tag was back and then on the talkpage you say that it's okay to tag a page because, in your mind, some other person exists who is better qualified to write about the material, so instead tagging and running is a fine option, leaving the real burden on that other imaginary person to improve the page. What I did anyone could have done with a little time and thought - what I haven't done at all is actually improve the page. All I did was bring it to a place to keep from edit warring over a tag, which to me is counterproductive, but there we are. I'll leave you alone now. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure whether the above comment stands in light of the note I left at the article's Talk page? Doniago (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the contribution history of the page and go through the history. I never ever added any content. I intend to add content but as I'm trying to explain, it will take time, as in time finding sources, reading them, and writing the content. In the meantime, the existing content can and has been sourced with about 20 minutes work - so again, why the tag? I know perfectly well what V stands for, so no need to link. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Andre Agassi
Hello may I please ask why my edit on Andre Agassi was edited? Although a bit expicit,I feet it is necessary to explain how a woman gave birth just four days after she got married. and also that a second child was born to the couple after they got married.PACB (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- You have not provided proper sourcing for the information you are inserting. That being said, isn't it kind of obvious that if she gave birth 4 days after she got married then she must have had sex prior to the marriage? Doniago (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Well Doniago.... you just said it!!! it is obvious that they had sex prior to the marriage? so what is the need for sourcing. Besides I dont think any source would contain such obvious(and explicit)things. Hence I will be unable to provide any source or reference to my edit. :) :) :) PACB (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but if it's obvious, then why bother saying it. And since this is a WP:BLP, verifiability is an especially important thing to keep in mind. If there isn't a source that states this information explicitly (no pun intended), we shouldn't say it either. Doniago (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see you reinserted the information without adding a source. That isn't appropriate, especially not for a BLP. If you really feel this information needs to be in the article, please start a discussion at the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I read the changes that PACB wrote. IMHO it certainly makes the article worse by adding unnecessary and obvious information. If something is added to an article page and it is deleted, bring it to the talk page so others (by consensus) can help determine if it makes for a better read. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at the article's Talk page PACB (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Google Voice
Response to your removal of my edit to Google Voice and the comment you left me:
Thanks for providing the information about verifiability. I'm new at Wikipedia editing, so I need all the help I can get. (and I did just read the pages about verifiability and no original research.) I believe I have found a suitable citation, but before I try editing the page again, please advise on whether it would be acceptable to cite this page from the official Google support site: http://www.google.com/support/voice/bin/answer.py?answer=115110&topic=19490
The relevant material is the third paragraph.
Finally, please accept my apologies if this is the wrong way to respond to you. It seems like a strange way to have a conversation. Tangiblethree (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)tangiblethree
- Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! A couple of FYI's-
- It's usually best to start a new thread at the very bottom of someone's talk page. If you don't see a tab at the top of their page that you can use to insert a section, you can insert a header as so- ==Section Name==. Makes the organization easier and all. :)
- If your concerns are regarding changes to a particular article, you may wish to start the discussion at the article's Talk page rather than that of the editor in question. That makes the conversation more "public" so that other editors can also offer any feedback.
- I'm by no means an expert on sourcing, but if the link you provided is information provided by Google in an official capacity (as opposed to, say, a forum post by a random user), than I think it should work. If not I'm sure someone will speak up eventually. (smile)
- Hope this helps, and thank you for being so polite in your message! We were all new at some point. :) Doniago (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 12:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Join WP:ROALD!
Hello, Doniago/Archive 9, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can j in!
|
-- We hope you can join MayhemMario 17:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invitation! I'm not clear on what I might have to offer, but I'll be happy to do what I can to help! Doniago (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- That would be great- thanks a lot!!!! Add your name here. MayhemMario 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Welcome!!!!!!
| Hello, Doniago/Archive 9, and Welcome to the Roald Dahl task force. Go to the To-Do list of this task force to see the list of open tasks. I hope that you enjoy being part of this project. Also if you have not already, add your name to the participants list to add your name. Again welcome! |
-From MayhemMario 18:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
JetBlue
The reason why I did not provide a source was because there was not an article or release from the company stating it. I knew the information first hand, which is why I posted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewhoya (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:VERIFY. All information published in Wikipedia should be reliably sourced. Wikipedia editors are not in and of themselves reliable sources. Sorry. Doniago (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked back at what I had put.... And the reason why I didn't add an article was because the link where I got my information was already listed as a source. There is no reason to double up in that scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewhoya (talk • contribs) 10:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at the source attached to the sentence you modified, and it did not support your modifications. In that case, the source provided may need to be updated. Doniago (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I flew on those JetBlue planes. I'm not sure what's needs modifications on it though. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Iaudio article sources
Hello, and thanks for your comment! I added references for the D3's latest firmware and the screen size statement as best I could - feel free to review or edit them, or remove the sentences altogether if you for some reason find them redundant. One of these references is a link to Wikipedia itself, and I have a sneaking suspicion that might be against the policy. I have done some minor-ish other changes to the article since then, so if you decide any of my edits are unwanted, please remove them individually without reverting the entire article back to a previous stage. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.6.40 (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is indeed against policy to use a wikilink as a source, sorry. I'll try to remember to look over the changes and let you know what I think, but I'm kind of brain-dead right now. If you don't hear anything from me but would like to, please poke me here! Thanks for your interest in improving the article! Doniago (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Reply
Hi, I'm writing to you, because you left this comment [1] in an earlier discussion, in which we participated. I didn't have time then, to continue that discussion. Also I don't want to continue with advancing my own arguments, instead I ask you to read this quote from the banning policy. I believe it's relevant to that earlier discussion about alleged "positive" or "good" editing. (from WP:BAN) Hobartimus (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Bans apply to all editing, good or bad
Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.[3]
- My concern on the original discussion was that it seemed you might be advocating a position that once an editor has been banned all edits they have made previously should be subject to reversion regardless of how constructive they are. My own opinion, which does not seem to be contradicted by the above policy, is that no contributions should be accepted from a banned editor going forward, but prior contributions should only be reverted if they are not constructive (then again, I tend to believe any non-constructive edits should usually be reverted). The policy you cite above does not seem to apply retroactively. Doniago (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for your opinion. Can you take a look at the actual case that prompted this discussion? they were these edits (merged into one) by an editor named Berchea. Do you believe the policy applies to them? The dispute arose because I undid these edits by the account Berchea. Hobartimus (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- The edits themselves don't appear innately harmful. Information added is cited. With my non-existent knowledge of the subject I wouldn't touch them personally. I guess the questions I would have then are whether a blocked user is equivalent to a banned user, and whether the user was effectively blocked/banned prior to the additions you linked me to. Given my limited investment in the situation I'm admittedly not inclined to answer these questions on my own initiative. Doniago (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for taking the time to reply. Hobartimus (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- The edits themselves don't appear innately harmful. Information added is cited. With my non-existent knowledge of the subject I wouldn't touch them personally. I guess the questions I would have then are whether a blocked user is equivalent to a banned user, and whether the user was effectively blocked/banned prior to the additions you linked me to. Given my limited investment in the situation I'm admittedly not inclined to answer these questions on my own initiative. Doniago (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for your opinion. Can you take a look at the actual case that prompted this discussion? they were these edits (merged into one) by an editor named Berchea. Do you believe the policy applies to them? The dispute arose because I undid these edits by the account Berchea. Hobartimus (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 14:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
*A Separate Peace* deletion
I thought your recent deletion of the “Gene Hated Finny” subsection on the A Separate Peace article talk page was rather selective. If the three posts on this section were forum notes (in your estimation), then what do you call the entire section on a (strictly perceived) homosexual subtext to the novel, even dragging Robert Graves into it? Both sections discuss character motivation and if you deleted the one then to be consistent you should delete the other as well. I believe more leeway should be extended to talk pages than to edits within articles themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you feel that section is also inappropriate per WP:NOTFORUM you are welcome to delete it as well. My deletion of one section is by no means a tacit endorsement of any other section. Talk page conversations should relate to improving the article; if they do not do so, they should be removed per the linked policy. Doniago (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Your response still doesn’t explain why you thought this section violates the relevant rule while the one I mentioned does not. Discussing whether there is a homosexual subtext to the novel is no different, in my opinion, than discussing the subtext of the polar opposite relationship between the two main characters, and discussing the nature of such relationships. A quid pro quo on my part of deleting the other section would not be appropriate as my quid would not be directed against the appropriate quo; furthermore, I don’t believe the other section should be deleted. By your deleting one while allowing the other to remain constitutes unwarranted subjective favoritism. Both discussions can lead to improving the article by way of character interpretation. If you fail to revert your deletion or provide an explanation for the perceived inconsistency, then I shall revert. I too believe in civility, so we can civilly take the matter to an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the section in question because it did not clearly have anything to do with improving the article itself. I did not review the Talk page entire, nor am I required to, nor does my deletion reflect on anything on the Talk page beyond the conversation that I in fact deleted. If you want to restore my deletion go right ahead; frankly I'm not that invested in the subject matter, though apparently you are as you contributed to a discussion that was several years old. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reasonableness on this issue. Yes, I do feel strongly about the point as the book is a classic that impressed me as a youth and has remained with me ever since. If we should ever disagree again, in that same spirit of reasonableness I shall defer to you regardless of how strongly I might feel about the issue. That is a promise. I thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know this is going to seem exceedingly odd, but upon dwelling on our disagreement, I have decided that you were correct after all. Therefore, I have reversed my revert of your deletion and there might matters please rest. I’m sorry for the waste of time, but what’s right is right. Now, I shall take no more of your time. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reasonableness on this issue. Yes, I do feel strongly about the point as the book is a classic that impressed me as a youth and has remained with me ever since. If we should ever disagree again, in that same spirit of reasonableness I shall defer to you regardless of how strongly I might feel about the issue. That is a promise. I thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the section in question because it did not clearly have anything to do with improving the article itself. I did not review the Talk page entire, nor am I required to, nor does my deletion reflect on anything on the Talk page beyond the conversation that I in fact deleted. If you want to restore my deletion go right ahead; frankly I'm not that invested in the subject matter, though apparently you are as you contributed to a discussion that was several years old. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Your response still doesn’t explain why you thought this section violates the relevant rule while the one I mentioned does not. Discussing whether there is a homosexual subtext to the novel is no different, in my opinion, than discussing the subtext of the polar opposite relationship between the two main characters, and discussing the nature of such relationships. A quid pro quo on my part of deleting the other section would not be appropriate as my quid would not be directed against the appropriate quo; furthermore, I don’t believe the other section should be deleted. By your deleting one while allowing the other to remain constitutes unwarranted subjective favoritism. Both discussions can lead to improving the article by way of character interpretation. If you fail to revert your deletion or provide an explanation for the perceived inconsistency, then I shall revert. I too believe in civility, so we can civilly take the matter to an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: Karate Kid
Many of the changes I made were simply reorganizing or clarification of facts. As for 'unneeded', like what? 70.53.103.186 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- As noted on your Talk page, WP:FILMPLOT specifies that plot summaries for film articles should generally be 400-700 words long. Your summary was 961 words, which strikes me as being unnecessarily long and is certainly against policy. If you feel an exception is merited, you are welcome to make a case for it at the article's Talk page. Doniago (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Our Man Bashir / Flint / Whoever
Thanks for your input; I'm always trying to learn from other editors. So, a question: if my edit on Our Man Bashir stating that the episode title is taken from the Bond spoof Our Man Flint is original research, is not the preceding statement that the episode pays homage to Bond and other similar heroes also original research? Thanks, John D. Goulden (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's a good question, and I was pondering it without reaching any firm conclusions. I would think there must be a secondary source that makes the connection, and if so then ideally the source can be plugged in to satisfy any OR concerns. I guess the probably unsatisfactory upshot is that you're welcome to tag it with the {{OR}} tag if you'd like...or even remove it and notify the editor who inserted the statement to begin with...or just flat-out remove it, though I don't recommend that when there's a less "aggressive" option available....but at this time I'm not planning to. I guess for me it boils down to a matter of specificity...your statement was far more specific than the one we're looking at now...but I'll be the first to admit that that's a somewhat weak argument. Thanks for coming to me with your concerns! Doniago (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
pink panther redirects
You may wish to comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pink_Pest_Control Gaijin42 (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I'm watching the conversation, though right now it looks like anything I could add has already been said. As far as any episode of any television series goes, my stance is that unless the episode possesses some clear notability, as demonstrated by secondary sources, it probably shouldn't have its own article. I'll be happy to add that to the AFD if you think it might make a difference. Doniago (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think so, even if you are just repeating. That is part of consensus, that certain people agree. Otherwise if one person said something, one person disagreed, and 99 more people agreed with one of them, but didnt respond, it would seem like an evenly split discussion Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've tossed in my two cents, supporting merging unless secondary sourcing is available to establish the notability of a particular episode. I'll continue watching the discussion, but if you think more feedback from me might be useful in some capacity, let me know. Doniago (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think so, even if you are just repeating. That is part of consensus, that certain people agree. Otherwise if one person said something, one person disagreed, and 99 more people agreed with one of them, but didnt respond, it would seem like an evenly split discussion Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
RE: December 2011
Hello. I appreciate your long overdue (and ignorantly stated) "welcome" to Wikipedia, and your explanation of policies of which I am already fully aware. I understand the reasoning behind your removal of my last contribution to the List of Arrested Development characters. However, I find it a bit counterproductive that you singled out my edit without first cleansing that article, and all related Arrested Development articles of 'original research.' Franklin being a parody of Roosevelt Franklin is obvious, relevant information. Unfortunately, it is one of the many unstated gags within the show, and thereby, has no explicit references to support it. There are many instances of such gags explained in Arrested Development related articles that have gone without proper citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargabaath (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Replied at the article's Talk page. Thanks for the civility! Doniago (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
RE: 99 Luftballons
Better delete the cover section from most of the song articles on Wikipedia then. -- Al™ 02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Support
Hey there. Thanks for stopping by me old Talk page to lend some support. I can't believe this person considers what I wrote "rude"! I get stern, but never rude. Sometimes stern is appropriate; it is incredile the trouble that one well-meaning but inexperienced editor can do with just a few edits. I hate, hate, hate cleaning up after others.
Meanwhile, how have you been? New Kate Bush album today--excellent.--TEHodson 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- No problem! It's amazing how dramatic some people get about their priceless edits being reverted. You probably could have taken a gentler tone in the message you left on their Talk page, but that doesn't mean their reply was warranted.
- Been doing alright here. Things have been pretty quiet on the WP front for me, which suits me fine I guess, though I'm a little disappointed that my actual concerns never did really get addressed. Oh well. Going home for the holiday on Wednesday and will have a few days with the 'rents before returning to real life on Sunday.
- I can't say anything about Kate Bush, as I have no idea who she is. My knowledge of music pretty much dies in the early '80s. :) Seriously, most of what I own is classical, showtunes, and film/television scores/soundtracks, though Glee has helped with that a bit.
- If we don't chat again before the holiday, have a good Thanksgiving! Doniago (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Want to have some fun? At the bottom. Doniago (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Erm, okay. Not really sure what happened there. Doniago (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just some sarcasm about the importance of his point. I also found the rhyming name-calling to be funny (you invited me to have fun!). It's also interesting how intense people get about The Simpsons. When I was in England and Ireland, everything stopped at 6ish when the show came on the Sky Channel. But I think he may be right that one is considered to have "arrived" when one gets mentioned or satirized by The Simpsons (or The Daily Show; once it was SNL), but I don't think it's a provable point, nor encyclopedic unless someone has written about it and you can cite the source.--TEHodson 23:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhh. I wasn't quite sure how to take your message. I just thought it was funny that I was accused of being a DICK-tator right after I told him exactly how he could get additional feedback if he felt that strongly about his "info". Doniago (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Really. You're the least dictator-ish of all my WP acquaintances, and are always the voice of reason. But I still think you should change your user name to WhackyWikiDickiTator. Although now I see it sort of sounds like an overwrought potato dish.--TEHodson 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhh. I wasn't quite sure how to take your message. I just thought it was funny that I was accused of being a DICK-tator right after I told him exactly how he could get additional feedback if he felt that strongly about his "info". Doniago (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just some sarcasm about the importance of his point. I also found the rhyming name-calling to be funny (you invited me to have fun!). It's also interesting how intense people get about The Simpsons. When I was in England and Ireland, everything stopped at 6ish when the show came on the Sky Channel. But I think he may be right that one is considered to have "arrived" when one gets mentioned or satirized by The Simpsons (or The Daily Show; once it was SNL), but I don't think it's a provable point, nor encyclopedic unless someone has written about it and you can cite the source.--TEHodson 23:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Erm, okay. Not really sure what happened there. Doniago (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Clearly you'll have to get to know me better. :) I think the main thing for me is that I really try usually not to take Wikipedia too seriously. And also that in my mind the policies and such generally are pretty clear cut, and it's so easy not to be incivil (not saying anything is a pretty good workaround) that there isn't usually an excuse for incivility. You think WhackyWikiDickiTator could pass without editors complaining that it's offensive, either to people or potatoes? Perhaps I should just go for WWDT? In any case, I'm admittedly concerned that Mr. Soylent Green will actually take your mildy over-the-top (wink) response as some sort of endorsement of their views (or accuse you of being incivil, heh), but I guess we'll see whether they speak up again. Doniago (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- And in almost completely unrelated news, I made a mashed potato dish for Thanksgiving. Doniago (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I ate a mashed potato dish for Thanksgiving. Two, actually: sweet and white. Yum. But no punkin pie--the party I went to had a lot of great food, all organic, wonderfully home-made, but the deserts were lacking in style. I don't think it should be legal to make deserts with whole wheat flour, or punkin pie without sugar. Otherwise, the day was fun. Did you enjoy your day?--TEHodson 20:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Both varieties of taters here too, as well as turkey/stuffing/cranberries. Awesome food, and enough leftovers to revisit on Saturday. I went to a vegetarian thanksgiving once and it was just a bit of a let-down...no seriously, where's the turkey? No deserts here, but dessert-wise we had a chocolate cream pie that was rather delicious, and a fruit pie that would have been okay but was a bit too dry. I'm not a pumpkin fan, but I did see a fascinating-horrifying picture of a cake that consisted of three layers that were pies. Yikes. I did enjoy Thanksgiving, but not as much as I enjoyed seeing this on Friday. Glad you had a good day! Doniago (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Did you take those? I sometimes miss NY. And no deserts where I am, either (that was a typo Mr. Perfectionist--why isn't there a built-in spell check on this thing?).--TEHodson 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did indeed! I love visiting NYC, but you couldn't pay me enough to live there. As to the built-in spell-check, perhaps you can ask your other muckity-muck Wikipedia friends, provided they haven't dessserted you due to your apppallling spellling. I have a BA in English, so I can't just ignore such tranzgrezions; I am required to speak teh Engrish gud. Doniago (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I treid to leaf a comment on the fotografs page, but it wooden let me. Very niece fotos. I have a BA in fillemmekkin/fotographin, and artt, so I'm rechoired to critical your fotos. Gud wones. How many pipple make the think you schott? Verry bootiphl. Don't have no stinkin frennds, mucky or othurwize.--TEHodson 04:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Did you take those? I sometimes miss NY. And no deserts where I am, either (that was a typo Mr. Perfectionist--why isn't there a built-in spell check on this thing?).--TEHodson 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Both varieties of taters here too, as well as turkey/stuffing/cranberries. Awesome food, and enough leftovers to revisit on Saturday. I went to a vegetarian thanksgiving once and it was just a bit of a let-down...no seriously, where's the turkey? No deserts here, but dessert-wise we had a chocolate cream pie that was rather delicious, and a fruit pie that would have been okay but was a bit too dry. I'm not a pumpkin fan, but I did see a fascinating-horrifying picture of a cake that consisted of three layers that were pies. Yikes. I did enjoy Thanksgiving, but not as much as I enjoyed seeing this on Friday. Glad you had a good day! Doniago (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I ate a mashed potato dish for Thanksgiving. Two, actually: sweet and white. Yum. But no punkin pie--the party I went to had a lot of great food, all organic, wonderfully home-made, but the deserts were lacking in style. I don't think it should be legal to make deserts with whole wheat flour, or punkin pie without sugar. Otherwise, the day was fun. Did you enjoy your day?--TEHodson 20:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Reading that gave me a headache last night, but I'm back now...quake in fear! I restricted commenting on my pics to Flickr users, so if you're not a Flickr user...mystery solved! Anywho, thanks for the horrifyingly-spelled-but-nevertheless-flattering feedback! You're welcome to critique, but I'd note that currently what's up there is "raw"...I didn't go through them at all yet, and I know I need to. I think 20 people were involved in putting the display together, and the more complicated structures took up to 1000 hours to complete. Makes WP editing look like a cakewalk. I think I grabbed a pic of some info that actually takes about the construction process. I'm glad your friends don't stink. (smirk) Doniago (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Me, too. Fortunately, they all have showers (and know how to use them, which is more to the point). That was really an incredible project you saw and photographed. Oh--the key to reading such nonsense is to do it aloud: phonetics is your friend. See you round the wikipedia.--TEHodson 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Escape From L.A. - Plot Length
Doniago,
- Recently, reverted an edit of mine on the Escape From L.A. article, apparently disputing the plot length. You pointed to WP:FilmPlot as your reasoning for the reversion, specifically the 400-700 word limit. I quote from the referenced passage: Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) I have bolded the reason for my contacting you on the issue. At a little over 800 words, I am of the belief that purpose of this guideline: to keep plot details from being inordinantly long; has been achieved, even though, in my opinion, the first two or three paragraphs have a lot of "fat" (even though I am a fan of internal linking to other Wikipedia articles). My reason for starting this "discuss[ion] with other editors" is to point you to WP:SOFIXIT, since you have already started to do so on your own, and seem to be taking some ownership of the article (you are the second most frequent editor of this page with 19 edits). That is, if you wish to follow "the rules" literally, I encourage you to fix the problem yourself and remove the plot length template once you have trimmed the first few paragraphs down to your desired length. I am a big believer in assuming good faith, and will therefore give you a week or so to do it yourself before I resume asserting my own opinion on the length of the plot; although I will, of course, start a discussion thread on the talk page before before making the edits (as per the ownership of articles nutshell). Cheers!KlappCK (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okie-doke. Doniago (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am rather confused as to why, knowing there were concerns about the plot length, you unilaterally removed the advisory without making any attempt to address said concerns, or even start a Talk page discussion to form a consensus as to whether the existing length was "acceptable". As evidenced by my recent edits, it was certainly possibly to trim the plot length down; in fact, you stated yourself that there was a lot of fat. Also, it is somewhat of an understatement to claim the length was "a little over 800 words" when in fact it was over 900. In any event, the current length is 704 words. Regards. Doniago (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Apollo 13
Yea, we do need to get that "technical and historical accuray" bit squared away. It failed the GA nomination due to it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:52 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- My method of squaring it away would involve a hatchet. Let me know if you want me to go that route. Doniago (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- By hatchet, do you mean delete? You have me a little confused, lol. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:02 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I was saying, yes. Easiest way to deal with unsourced information is to remove it, especially if the section's been tagged for a while already. Obviously I wouldn't touch anything with a proper citation. Doniago (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Than i guess, a hatchet won't cut it. We'll need a chainsaw. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:05 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. Perhaps a flamethrower? Doniago (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it gets the job done. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:08 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. Perhaps a flamethrower? Doniago (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- By hatchet, do you mean delete? You have me a little confused, lol. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:02 8 December 2011 (UTC)
New banner picture vote
Click here to vote for a new picture for our task force banner. sillybillypiggy¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE! 17:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Apollo 13 (film) Technical/Historical section
Hello old bean, as you've recently contributed to a discussion on the same topic, would appreciate you dropping by Talk:Apollo_13_(film)#Removal_of_entire_Technical_.26_Historical_Accuracy_section_to_try_and_meet_Good_Article_status.3F and chipping in, thanks! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure there's anything I could add to the conversation at this time. I agree with trimming the unsourced material rather than chopping the entire section out. As it is, I think the lead sentence should also be removed unless it's going to be sourced. Doniago (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking that maybe someone like me should create a list of characters in the Die Hard franchise since they are four Die Hard movies and they are going to film a fifth one soon. Do you think the list of Die Hard characters should be created? BattleshipMan (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it would be worthwhile, honestly. I can see the McClanes and Hans Gruber and Dick Thornburg possibly having significant third-party coverage, but I think it's less likely that most of the other characters have received any real notice. Still, it couldn't hurt to go looking for such coverage...I'm just worried it'll end up looking like fancruft more than anything else. Thanks for asking for my opinion though! Doniago (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm...I sort of agreed with you on that and would require third party coverage. What I thinking is that, like you said that some characters are less likely to receive real notice, is we should make something like that. I noticed in some list of characters pages on various books, movie franchises, tv series and video games, which is kind of the reason why I brought this up. Some pages, like List of 24 characters, have seperate list of character pages, while others like the List of Splinter Cell characters, have characters biographies and are listed in the games they appeared. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion is that those pages tend to end up being (unsourced) trivia magnets and oftentimes never quite reach what I'd consider a point where they really merit inclusion in this project versus a wikia...but I'm not inclined to spend my time on deletion discussions for such things either. I'm just not sure there's enough third-party information about the Die Hard characters to make a List article a useful endeavor...but I could be wrong! You could always ask at WP:FILM to see what other editors think and possibly get some help with this endeavor. Doniago (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm...I sort of agreed with you on that and would require third party coverage. What I thinking is that, like you said that some characters are less likely to receive real notice, is we should make something like that. I noticed in some list of characters pages on various books, movie franchises, tv series and video games, which is kind of the reason why I brought this up. Some pages, like List of 24 characters, have seperate list of character pages, while others like the List of Splinter Cell characters, have characters biographies and are listed in the games they appeared. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 16:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Shithead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nues20 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)