User talk:Doniago/Archive 91
 | 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 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
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) 23:39, 3 April 2021 (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) 23:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Revert to the Man Who Knew Too Much
The information I added was mentioned by Ben Mankeiwitz (sic) on TCM last Friday. IDK how you'd go about citing it but that's your source. pbp 17:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Wrongly accused of vandalism, could you please add clarification?
Hi,
It seems that I was mistakenly accused of vandalism at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1015695553&oldid=1015695334&diffmode=source . As I clarified to the administrators I had no relation to the vandal in question. No harm done, but it would help minimize personal future personal attacks against Wikimedia employees (those can happen) if you could edit your comment indicating this was a just a misunderstanding of accounts as Mark realized here and here.
It would be a bit counterintuitive for me to vandalize on a project that I spend working hard over 40 hours a day to maintain, making sure the servers are healty :-). Please also understand that we use exclusively the WMF accouts for official communications (like outage communication and technical help), and we don't use them for editing/policy discussion/etc.- some of us we have personal accounts for that. For example, if I am on vacation (like I was at the beginning of the month), I will see messages to my volunteer account, but not to the employee one during breaks- as I won't have access to my WMF email.
Thank you for your understanding. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- You got it! I think it's obvious at this time that Mark just got his editor names confused, but I'm happy to clarify that I also have no concerns with regards to your editing. :) Cheers! DonIago (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. You may think this is a small thing, that wasn't worth requesting it, but it makes feel more comfortable making sure every one knows it was a simple account misunderstanding and that there will be no further allegations the future by casual readers. Imagine my employer thinking I go vandalizing Wikipedia in my free time! :-) Thank you again. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Tunguska in songs
Hi DonIago,
You removed my addition to the "Songs" section on the Wikipedia page, "Tunguska event in popular culture," saying I should have included a citation.
The addition you removed was a line saying that "Return to Tunguska" is the first track on the Alan Parsons album, "A Valid Path." I included a link to the Wikipedia entry for that album, which lists the tracks and also cites the sources.
From your note, it sounds like you find it insufficient to link to another Wikipedia entry where further information and citations can be found.
Would it be sufficient if I were to add that information back in, but also cite an outside source for the track list?
Thank you.
Regards,
Marina Michaels — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarinaMichaels (talk • contribs)
- Hi Marina, please note that new Talk page threads should generally be added to the bottom of Talk pages, and that it is typically best to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) to the end.
- Wikipedia articles are not sufficient sources per WP:CIRCULAR, but to summarize, they're insufficient because the linked article could be deleted at some point, or the text at the linked article could be altered in such a way that it would no longer verify the information in question.
- Because we're talking about an "in popular culture" item, per WP:IPCV a source should be provided that not only establishes that the album references the Tunguska event, but that this reference to the event is considered significant in some manner. A source that merely verifies the tracklist would consequently be insufficient.
- Thanks for reaching out to me with your concerns, and please let me know if my response leaves you with additional questions! DonIago (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2021 (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) 23:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Staplehurst Rail Crash
Dear Doniago
Somewhat confused that you've removed two edits supported by references to:
https://www.charlesdickenspage.com/staplehurst-railway-crash-1865.html
and an article in the New York Times? Perhaps you can explain.
I'm aware that there's some debate about using offline material to support an edit so I can understand you removing my reference to a book. But I'm surprised you removed the entire "In fiction" section, most of which was internet-referenced and had been there for some time? Regards Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I believe I restored the information linked to CharlesDickensPage? If not, please feel free to restore that material!
- Regarding the others, they didn't appear to satisfy WP:IPCV, as I noted in my edit summary. Reviews of books that incidentally mention the crash within the context of the book (and perhaps I'm wrong and the reviews discussed the crash more substantially) don't, to my mind, qualify as establishing that the reference within the books to the crash is especially significant. An analogy would be a review of a Star Trek novel referencing Jim Kirk; it's a review of a Star Trek novel, so it would be more strange if it did not mention Kirk. I hope this is helpful, but please let me know if you have additional concerns, and thanks for reaching out to me! DonIago (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!
I did not know, until your edit, that 30em is now automated in the {{reflist}} template, and I could therefore have accomplished the same thing by removing the |1 that had been there previously. Thank you! 1980fast (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doniago, if "embellished" is POV then I've suggested a less strongly worded alternative. The wide disparity between Frank Abagnale's life and his own account of it has been thoroughly documented. Please read about it in the section titled Veracity of claims. It would be a great disservice to readers to continue to perpetrate the myth. DAVilla (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did read about it and the fact is every movie adaptation of a non-fiction subject takes liberties, but "embellished" to me is putting undue emphasis on it, especially as there's nothing in the film article to indicate that the liberties taken were more notable than those taken with other films of this nature. I skimmed the section you linked, and it doesn't even mention the film, that I saw. Calling it a "great disservice to readers" to not emphasize that the film isn't strictly true-to-life sounds hyperbolic to me. Interested readers can already read about the differences from the real-life account in the appropriate section, and I think it's commonly understood that liberties are taken when films are made about real-life subjects. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2021 (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) 23:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
References for 'Tunguska event in popular culture'.
You asked me to respond here if I believe you have made a mistake in reverting the change, and here I am. I have looked - there are only nine citations or references on that page - far too few for the myriad examples, and I made my addition to follow the same convention as the rest of the page. And I am left wondering what causes my edit to be the exception, rather than the rule. What makes a reference to a weapon named 'Tunguska' in Warframe different to an uncited reference to a weapon named 'Tunguska' in Borderlands 2? Put simply, I believe you have made a mistake. Put cynically, I believe this to be an arbitrary enforcement of a rule that has heretofore not been enforced. Please either reconsider whether this entry needed to be expunged, or reconsider whether nearly all of the other entries now require expungement because they are in a similar state, or explain to me what distinction exists that renders the need for a citation necessary when it has not before. I have read the link you sent me, and I am unconvinced of their application. 82.16.134.244 (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your addition isn't the exception. The article has been tagged for needing citations since 2007. Consequently no new items should be being added without sources, and I've been gradually removing items for which sources haven't provided, as they never should have lingered for this long in the first place. It's a clear violation of WP:IPCV. If you disagree, you're welcome to raise the question at the article's Talk page, but from my perspective it's been longstanding practice now that all "in popular culture" items require sourcing as a means of establishing that the pop culture reference is considered significant. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. That's fine. Thanks for clearing that up - I'll get right on it. 82.16.134.244 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)