This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doniago. 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.
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!
Working on their edits, I've only now discovered how much you've done about them. Much appreciated and a bit embarrassing given my ANI report. I hope you read what I added to their talk page. Doug Wellertalk08:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we have a problem. One of my removals of Wiktionary was reverted as there was a source. Looking at [1] and clicking on the Wiktionary entry I found [2]Doug Wellertalk10:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not our job to confirm that every one of the dozens of Wiktionary links that Intich added to articles in turn has a source. If you or anyone else wants to do so, you're of course welcome to, but I don't have the time or inclination to dig into it. Intich still hasn't edited lately, but if/when they return, hopefully they can/will do the work they should have done in the first place. DonIago (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree. I also think that even if there is a source in Wiktionary we should use, once verified, the source itself, we still can't trust Wiktionary. I don't think I should have been reverted. Sorry, meant to say this earlier but got distracted with a futile search for the Paracas Candelabra which I know exists but can't find, probably in Spanish. Doug Wellertalk13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Right. As I said in my first message to Intich, using reliable sources that Wiktionary uses is fine, but merely citing Wiktionary is entirely unacceptable; if nothing else, the Wiktionary page could change in the future. I'm not sure what instance of you being reverted you're referring to; I didn't see that in either diff you included here? DonIago (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I explained the issue to the person who reverted me and they agreed we shouldn't use it. A few more minutes and I hope they will all be cleaned up. Let's hope when they return they have listened. Doug Wellertalk13:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Scatman Crothers revision
Thank you for the message response. I actually did not add the initial uncredited TV show reference to either the "Wonderful World of Disney" or "The Lorax" television shows. As they were already present when I began editing the page, I assumed that they were already confirmed and merely researched the identity of the episodes (season, number, and title) in question. As of now, I do not know who added the two shows to the Television filmography "table" or when they were added. I just saw them and sought out the episode information to complete the list. Take care and be well. Lime green k (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
re the Kamen edit, I don't really understand how to amend accordingly to bring inline with requirements, it's all rather confusing with [ ] and { } and others symbols and linking etc. plus my reportage to include in the page was all factual. Dirk Wickenden (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Dick, you were left a notice at your Talk page regarding Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, which you have if you're trying to add information about an event at which you were a guest speaker. I hope you can see how it appears to be self-promoting for you to be attempting to add such content. Please review that notice as well as the links with which you've been provided. At that point, I'm sure I or the editors at those pages or the ones who left you notices at your Talk page will be happy to try to assist you further. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2024 (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!
Thanks for reaching out to me, but I think the notices at your Talk page supersede this and cover the most important parts of what I would have said in response. I hope you'll read and respect them. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
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!
Hi DWB; I did get your email but I haven't had a lot of bandwidth this week. I'll try to take a look tonight or later this week. Thanks for reaching out! DonIago (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Lords of Flatbush soundtrack
Hello,
Regarding your reversion, I will look for a citation for the soundtrack. However I note that both the Plot and Cast sections also have no citations, and haven't for many years, so looks like a double standard... Assambrew (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Not really. As discussed at MOS:FILM, the plot summary should only be a listing of events that actually occur in the film, without any interpretation. As such, the film is a primary source. Similarly, the cast listing should be verifiable from the credits for the film. We do require sourcing for any uncredited roles.
In any event, just because another section doesn't have sources wouldn't mean it would be okay to add more unsourced content.
Well, information about the soundtrack is verifiable from the cover of the album. Wouldn't that also be considered a primary source? The same information is also on IMDb, perhaps that could be cited as a tertiary source? Thanks for the film discussion link.. Assambrew (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're assuming that it's okay that those articles have soundtrack sections with no sourcing? In any event, if the soundtrack is significant enough for inclusion, then it seems to me that finding sources that have discussed it shouldn't be particularly challenging? DonIago (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I assume it's OK for those Soundtrack sections to have no sourcing, for the same reason it's OK that the Cast sections have no sourcing: the verifiable data comes from the sources themselves, either the album cover or the movie credits. You seem to agree with the latter, but not the former. Apparently other editors think both practices are acceptable. I respect what you do in policing Wikipedia, thanks for your valuable service. But maybe in this case you are being nitpicky? :) Assambrew (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Look, if you think I'm being nitpicky, then by all means take it to the article's Talk page and give other editors the opportunity to weigh in and form a consensus on the subject. But I don't think it's nitpicky to ask you to provide onesource that's discussed the soundtrack, and it makes me very leery when an editor either cannot or will not do so. DonIago (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually yes, it is challenging to find sources for a movie soundtrack 50 years old. I suppose I could dig in a print library somewhere. I have no connection to anyone involved, I just recall that the music and songs were important to the movie and so the soundtrack deserves mention. Assambrew (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The one online source I can find is IMDb. I could use that as a tertiary source which WP:CITEIMDB states is acceptable "for hard data on released films". But that seems unnecessary, since the primary source is verifiable. Assambrew (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Care to tell me why you reverted my edit in The Sixth Sense article? Removing thr link to the EVP article is one thing, but the way I recorded that sentence more accurately reflects the dialogue in the movie, I even looked at a transcript to confirm it. As written, that sentence is an inaccurate description for why Cole suggested Malcolm talk to his wife while she sleeps. Nahald (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary, the link you added was an WP:EGG link. I don't have any issue with the rest of your edit per se, but I don't think it was an improvement either, and you definitely shouldn't have included a contraction, which is a WP:TONE concern. As far as concerns about accuracy with regard to the film's script, the goal of the plot section is to summarize the overall plot; being as accurate as possible isn't necessarily a priority, as described at WP:FILMPLOT. FWIW, I might have approached this differently if you'd left an edit summary of your own when you inserted your changes. Thank you for coming to me with your concerns! DonIago (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2024 (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!
Hi @Doniago:, many thanks for monitoring this article and checking the edits. I do disagree, however, that my edits added unnecessary details and so I would like them to be re-instated. My edits focus on a) adding aspects on the story between Noodles and Deborah (which is a key theme of the movie and had thus far not been adequately covered in the summary), b) correcting mistakes (e.g. Deborah is not "still an actress" but she has turned into one by then) and c) adding a description of the key scene with exchanging babies (if that one should go out, then why would the scene with the diamond raid stay? Also, the detail on him watching the assassination attempt on Bailey is not needed). Please let me know which of these additions are in your view not needed and too detailed and we can discuss. Thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC).
Thanks for reaching out to me with your concerns! WP:FILMPLOT has a pretty bright-line rule that plot summaries for film articles should not exceed 700 words. As such, I don't take issue with any of your specific edits, but rather the overall expansion. If you feel that guideline should be waived for the article for this film, I recommend that you initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page so that a consensus can be established. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. The guideline says "should not exceed 700 words" and "unless the structure is unconventional", but in the article it already says that this movie with close to 4 hours qualifies for this. And infact the summary is already beyond 700 words. I will discuss on the talk page as you suggest but I find your broadbrush deletion on the basis of "many unnecessary additional details" strange editing. Jaeljojo (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
To prevent any sense that you might have created a new account to avoid scrutiny or such, I recommend that you update your old user account with Template:Retired to indicate that you no longer intend to use it, as discussed at WP:SOCKLEGIT. DonIago (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ariana Grande discography and Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine on "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comments. 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.
