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.
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!
Doniago, thought I'd drop a line because I never got to till now. Regarding your post at my old talk page for IP 76.195.86.50, ref: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, I wanted you to know I did not appreciate your zooming in on me just because they did not like what I had to argue there.
But I can see from your talk page that you are indeed a feather-ruffler. Your attempts to keep it clean here are admirable, but really, dude, chillax. If only YOU had come to my rescue when they were roasting my butt over at Anna Anderson.75.21.119.216 (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there...it took me a fair amount of time to track down what you were referring to; I assume you mean our run-in on the Talk page for the film, but the above link is the article page for the book. Not trying to sound snippy or anything, but a more direct link would have been nice. (smile)
I'm sorry you felt I was zooming in on you, it looked to me as though you were engaging in personal attacks, which is one of the biggest no-no's the project has. I'd like to think I would warn anyone and everyone who engaged in incivility unless I was directly involved; unfortunately it gets a bit more complicated then.
In any event, warning messages are just that - advisories of policies which editors are concerned you may be violating. If you didn't mean to violate the policy or don't plan to do so again, or even just don't want the message on your Talk page, you can always remove it, and other editors do -not- have the right to reinsert it per WP:BLANKING.
If you feel you are currently the victim of personal attacks and can point me to them via diffs, I'll be happy to look at what occurred myself and warn the editors if I think it's appropriate.
I would be quite happy to see the sources added in, yes. As a point of note, editors aren't required to tag material for needing sources prior to removing it, and I generally will not do so if I can identify the editor who added the material provided it's a recent addition. Per WP:BURDEN the material really shouldn't be being added without proper sourcing to begin with, and IMO (I realize it's a point of contention) it's more expedient to contact the editor so they can provide the sourcing right off the bat, as opposed to letting unsourced material "sit around". In any case, as long as proper sourcing is added I'm quite happy to let the material stand. Thank you for bringing your concerns to me. Doniago (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Much better!!! Thank you so much! I'm not a sourcing guru, and I'm not sure that another editor won't contest the Photos Magiques site, but I'm okay with it. My only quibble is that the opening date still doesn't have a source. As far as I'm concerned tagging that rather than omitting it would be acceptable, though obviously sourcing would be ideal.
The contribution was taken from the film "Hot Tub Time Machine" starring John Cusack. Why did you delete the entry then asking to source it? Do you want to mention how many minutes into the film when the song was used? Obviously, if the contribution was clearly mentioned as lifted from the mentioned film, then it follows that the source of the contribution is the film itself. --Pekpeklover (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
When including things like songs referenced in films, you should provide third-party sourcing to establish that it's a significant reference in some manner. Otherwise the reference is essentially trivial and there's no reason to include it. You may also wish to review WP:CRUFT. Doniago (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't need third-party sourcing to establish the significance of this song's usage in the film. Obviously, you haven't seen the film and your opinion does not make you an absolute authority to remove entries that appear trivial to your taste. --Pekpeklover (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I read the link you provided me to review WP:CRUFT. My entry regarding the usage of this song in the film, is not even a fancruft. There is no fanaticism involved in the way i have written the entry. The contribution i provided is "notable", because the song was used by the film creators to provide emphasis that the storyline is from the 80's era, in which this song was widely popular. Branding it as "trivial" based on your personal taste, is like disregarding the importance that the film makers made in choosing this song in their storyline. --Pekpeklover (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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!
Why did you delete the section on 9 pin video connectors? Although there was no reference as such, their existence can hardly be in doubt. If the lack of a reference bothered you that much, you could easily have added one yourself instead of being disruptive. It took me all of 30 seconds to find a reference to the connector (added to the article). I took a further couple of minutes to find references from several graphic card manufacturers, but one reference is entirely adequate. 86.182.71.209 (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I explained my reasons for deleting the material on the article's Talk page, and would prefer that any discussion of that occur there, thank you. I'm glad to see the material is now properly sourced. The History section is still lacking sourcing, perhaps you could see what you can do for that section as well? Good job on sourcing the 9-pin section. Doniago (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
You might want to review the discussion at the Avatar Talk page, as I clearly am -not- the only editor who disagrees with your arguments for including the Dean information thus far. And the warning is not irrelevant when you continue adding the info without waiting for a consensus on the Talk page and in fact are disregarding the closest thing there is to a consensus at present (2 opposed, 1 supporting). Doniago (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The lack of evidence linking James Cameron's remark about possibly having been inspired by a Yes album cover to any specific album cover created by Roger Dean. Now if there was a Cameron quote specifically mentioning the album cover with the floating mountains, that would be something else, but right now we're talking about assumptions. Doniago (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
"When Cameron was asked if he got the idea for the floating mountains from an album cover of the rock band Yes, he replied with a laugh, "It might have been ... Back in my pot-smoking days." The only artist who created floating mountains on Yes covers was Roger Dean - we don't need to know which particular cover it was - there were many with floating mountains. Androstachys (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we do, otherwise you're assuming that Cameron is talking about that specific album. "It's obvious" is insufficient. And this is being discussed on the article's Talk page, so I'm not sure why we're continuing to discuss it here. Doniago (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Ares??
"The recent edit you made to the page Ares has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you."
WTF!? I have never made edits to this page, and had never heard of Ares until now. You must have the wrong person.Min1Phoeb2 (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hate to say it, but I'm not sure who you are or what this is in regards to, as I've never even viewed the Ares article. Can you provide diffs? Doniago (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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!
Not quite sure why you erased my edits to the "Good Grief" page. It was simply an addition of many notable moments in the episode, and as every other episode page for Arrested Development has uncited sections like this, it seems absurd to delete them. It was simply adding uniformity to this category. If your standards are truly the norm, it seems that every episode page for this show should be severely edited down, but as this is a program that is hugely concerned with references such as these, surely deleting these helpful notes is detrimental to wikipedia's mission.
It struck me as being cruft, trivial and lacking sourcing of any kind. That other articles have these sections may be more of a comment on those articles' need for improvement. If you still feel the information is pertinent please feel free to start a discussion at the article's Talk page, or if it is part of an appropriate project, on the appropriate discussion page. I would appreciate it if you could notify me of such discussion. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
While I can definitely appreciate where you are coming from, I think you need to recognize that there are plenty of situations out there that don't warrant citations, and TV episodes are a perfect example. Arrested Development is not the only show that leans on pop culture references frequently. Recognizing these references can often be vital in getting a simple joke, or understanding the episode on the whole. Peruse some other episode pages to see what I mean (especially The Simpsons and sometimes Seinfeld). Sometimes these notes are in the "Production" category, but bits of trivia like this are often very much appreciated by true fans of the show. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page, please chime in if you like.
Actually, pop culture references -do- require sourcing in order to establish that they were inserted deliberately rather than being coincidence. To assume that a reference is intentional would constitute original research. If you don't believe me (and I'm not assuming you won't), ask at the Television Project page. That other pages have unsourced refs is a comment on their poor quality. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not IMDb or a fansite.
Thank you for the notification of the discussion at the article's Talk page, I'll contribute there if I have anything to say as well. Doniago (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. And while yes, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, realize that is has become more than that in many cases. Now go edit every other Arrested Development episode page to make them consistent please, as you seem to overly concerned with this sort of content... Now I'm off to write a book about Arrested Development so I can come back in 5 years and cite my notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmitchelllewis (talk • contribs) 12:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User_talk:Betty_Logan, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, as I've never had anyone edit my Talk page comments I don't know how I'd feel about it. It would certainly help if it was an editor I was familiar enough with to trust that they really were acting in my best interests. For the record, I count you among those, and I don't normally even review changes you make to articles. (smile)
I have noticed a fair amount of plot-tagging going on lately, even on articles I'd previously de-tagged. Is there a feeling that we should be more aggressive about that? I'd been sticking to my woefully unofficial "keep it under 1K words" policy in most cases...though usually I'm chopping plots down, not building them up. Doniago (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm..you shoot for 1k I tend to go for under 800 (and only that many for some of the more complex films). I'll generally tag most things that are longer than 800 and bookmark things that are, to my mind, too long but still under 800 or even within the 400-700 guidelines.
I don't know if there is so much a feeling that we should be more aggressive so much as people are still being really literal about the guidelines. I mean you and I both know that some films are so simple (no matter how long) that even 400 words is too long of a plot. I wouldn't tag one of those but I'd sure as hell cut the bejeebus out of it. But some people will spaz if a review is complete and thorough but under 400 words and some people have a cow at 750 words, even when it's necessary.
If any of the more frequent tagging you've noticed has come from me at all, I'm at my boyfriend's house for a few weeks and his computer screen distorts my view of how long text looks (it also ups my typo count because his keyboard is dinky). So I may have plot tagged a few things that are a little long but not really long enough to warrant the tag. Because of tracking two problem IPs (good intentions poor technique/crufty) I've also plot tagged some stuff that is actually well within length guidelines but just about the only thing in the article (mostly bugs bunny and looney tunes stuff). Mainly this is because twinkle doesn't give me access to the allplot tag and I'm profoundly lazy.
I recall Erik saying something on a talk page somewhere about how the plot should be proportional to the rest of the article. The gist was that there's no point to a 1k word plot if 1) the storyline wasn't fairly complex and 2) there wasn't a crapload of other material in the article. Put another way, a 700 word plot could be too long if there wasn't at least a minimal reception and production section.Millahnna (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I shoot for 1K -maximum-, anything over that I'd definitely tag (or ideally trim myself), anything under I might trim but probably wouldn't tag (haven't had as much time for plot-trimming lately).
I don't mind people being literal about the guidelines. Exceptions can be hammered out via Talk, and if the feeling really is that the guideline itself is a problem, then the guideline should be revisited. It beats the innumerable arguments I've had with editors claiming "it's obvious!" as an argument for something not needing sourcing.
I've had a couple of situations lately where I was ready to revert for apparent plot-bloat only to realize that the synopsis was still within-guideline. I'm somewhat of an impatient editor, so I left it alone figuring other editors could determine whether the additional material was useful.
I always drop the plot into Word and run a word-count myself, just to be safe. I like the guideline that the Plot should be in proportion to the rest of the content, but at that point I'd say there's a whole lot of articles that need massive cuts (pick practically any episode of an animated series). Doniago (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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!
I'm giving up. I tried to include a little bit more info on cover versions and uses in (other) media twice, but you rejected both changes both times. I honestly think you're being too rigorous here. Both additions don't need much (extra) proof. First, Glee is fairly well known around the world - the YouTube video with the Glee performance of The Safety Dance is all over the place and let's be honest - I think many more people know about Glee than any of the TV shows you've mentioned (all of which are without any reference either). Also, I think a lot more people know the Glee cover of the song than the artists you mentioned, such as Status Quo (can't find their version anywhere) or Frankmusik (not an artist, but a remixer, so he might as well have simply remixed the original song).
Second, I think it's weird to say a YouTube video is not proof enough for a legitimate reference. I stated that The Safety Dance is currently in use for a European LiptonIce commercial. To prove this, I included a link to the commercial on YouTube. What more proof do you want?!
Firstly, when adding new comments to Talk pages, please add them to the bottom, not the top. Secondly, disputes about article content should really be discussed at the article's Talk page, not an editor's; that way other editors with an interest can also contribute to the discussion.
My understanding is that Popular Culture references need to be sourced to establish that they are significant. We don't want a simple listing of every time The Safety Dance ever shows up on tv, we want to know why it's a significant reference, and for that we need third-party sourcing. YT may establish that something exists, but hardly establishes that it's significant.
The reference to the 148 takes was taken from Garret Brown, photographer of the scene and commentator on the DVD commentary.
I wanted to provide such a citation, but couldn't figure out how to do this, or find information. If you can provide a pointer I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.99.11 (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources should help, I think. Alternately there's a few articles for episodes of Futurama that cite the DVD commentary as a source...you could probably borrow the formatting there and edit as needed. Hope this helps! Doniago (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not reject your edit, I removed the portions of your edit that involved changing another editor's comments per WP:TPO. Under most circumstances you should -never- edit another editor's comments. Aside from that, I'm sorry but I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Doniago (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
One of the users, Flyer22, on the Titanic discussion's page wrote my username as a wrongdoer, she said i was attempting to use IPs for changing page against consensus and she threatened me to report and blocking my account, I want to you compel her until she erase my usernames as a wrongdoer or let me to erase my usernames on her sentences, what can i do?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried talking with them about this directly? In any event, editing their comments is an inappropriate way of resolving the problem, and as I noted earlier it's a violation of policy as well. I'm not an Admin or such, so I can't do anything to compel Flyer22 to change her comments. You might want to check WP:DR to determine the best means of resolving this. Also, while this might not be something you want to hear, if all of your concerns revolve around the one article, especially if you're not able to form a consensus favoring your view, perhaps it might be best to just walk away from the article in question? Consensus can change; you can always revisit the topic in a few months to see whether people are more inclined to agree with you.
I should also note that I reviewed your most recent comments, and I'm concerned that even if you have good points to make you may be undermining yourself with remarks such as "Many editors in Wiki suffered low from OCD and this people have not the power to endurance other words by other editors." I would encourage you to delete such unconstructive comments, and perhaps review WP:CIVIL. If you're perceived to be attacking your fellow editors people will be less likely to work constructively with you in turn, and in a worst-case scenario you could even be blocked for personal attacks. I don't think you're planning to go down that road, but as you seem to be fairly new to WP I just thought I should point it out. I hope you find this helpful. Doniago (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Flyer22 doesn't to erase my username from the talk page as wrongdoer, i removed that diction of my words that you said isn't good for me (OCD), we can't reach to consensus and she want to play a ridiculer game with me! where can i complain? please guide me? my english is not well and i don't understand what she said bottom of the talk page after my request, please guide me to the direct link.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If your concerns are regarding the article specifically, there's the Content noticeboard. If you're more concerned with Flyer specifically, then as I said above you should follow the processes outlined at WP:DR. Doniago (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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!
Hello, my name is Tyler (STCooper1). I would like to apologize for the Shere Khan edit I did. I will not overwrite anything again and am sorry for the trouble. I have edited Shere Khan again, but I left out a lot of unnessessary details. I hope it is better than the last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STCooper1 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem! (smile) I assumed you meant well and just weren't aware of the guidelines...when I was new I made the same types of mistakes myself. Don't worry about it! Doniago (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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!
You and I have tag teamed on plots before so I thought you might be able to help write around my writing here. I just did this to a kid's flick I haven't seen since it came out way back in the day. I feel like more can still be cut and that I might have screwed the grammar somewhere but I've been looking at the blasted thing for a week now. So whatever it is, I'm missing it. If it's not your cuppa (or you can't think of anything) no worries. But if you decide to take a look, I'd actually advise skimming the long version of the plot before snipping anything else from my trimmed up one. For a kid's flick it was strangely in depth (and it scared the crap out of me when I was 11) and there may be some things that seem minor but actually have significance. Like I said, I've been staring at it too long so I can't see the forest for the trees anymore. And I know you and I can blend writing fairly well so I thought I'd run it past you. Millahnna (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Howdy! I was able to get it down to 705 words. I've never seen the movie myself, and I have to admit the subject matter isn't exactly an attention-grabber for me. (smile) The summary appears cohesive now, but if you feel it's lacking important points maybe those should be reincorporated. One concern I have is that the first paragraph seems to be a bit lacking in context...it introduces the new characters, but I don't know whether the Lieutenant (Lieutenant of what?) part is important, and the Emperor of the Night without any explanation is somewhat bothersome to me. Maybe this is a case where we should take some liberties with the word-count? Doniago (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was worried about. That first paragraph is basically a prologue and the Emperor of the Night is never really explained outside of this one story. Lt. Grumblebee is a character from other Pinocchio stuff. I've been meaning to dig around for a wikilink to give him context (should have a passing mention in another Pinocchio article somewhere) . It's just that after looking at the thing for so long, I couldn't proofread it anymore (looking at your own work type of thing) without someone else touching the article first. I was thinking it might be an exception to some length guidelines but just couldn't wrap my brain around it. Honestly, not the sort of page I usually watch. I followed an IP vandal there a few weeks ago and saw the 3200 word plot of doom and knew I had to kill it with fire. Now that there's other fingerprints on the article, I should be able to look at it without getting brain bleed. 22:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone used too many tildes. (grin) In the context of this film it's hard to tell whether the Lt. part makes any difference...I'd almost recommend omitting it unless there's more context. The first paragraph also made it sound as though TEOTN was someone with some sort of reputation, but without context (or some indication that the audience isn't given a context) it's hard to know what to make of it. 3200 words, really? Sorry I missed that one. (smirk) Hope my notes/trims help, and let me know if you want me to take another look at it (I'm watching it now, FWIW). Doniago (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Second time today I've done that. I'll blame the insomnia? I'll take a look at omitting Grumblebee entirely from the plot; a brief character description down under cast might do it (I've got an idea now but it needs to brew and I need sleep). I was also thinking about Willikers. He's a nice plot point when you're actually watching the film but most of what he does, other than being brought to life to begin with, isn't major enough to include in the summary. Which gets really awkward in my brain. Millahnna (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I was a bit put-off by the idea that Pinocchio needs a new conscience (what happened to Mr. Cricket anyhow?), though as far as the article goes that's neither here nor there. If you don't feel that GB or Willikers significantly contribute to plot developments I'd support nuking them from it and just mentioning their pertinence in the Cast section, though the fact that Pinocchio is given a new conscience seems like the kind of thing that would be a major plot point... Doniago (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
And therein lies the crux of my mental debate over Willikers. Should be a major plot point, but kind of isn't once you get past the opening bits. He sort of tries to rescue Pinocchio at the end (and I really took a hatchet to that final sequence) but in the most "nothing major happens here" fashion. I'll figure it out. I may have to break down and see if I can't find a copy of the film. Honestly, I had completely forgotten this movie even existed until I followed some problem editor over to it one day. I didn't even realize I had actually seen it until I got to a bit that was written as being "arguably the film's most nightmarish sequence". Completely POV wording so I cut it, of course, but the dude who wrote the freakishly long version of the plot was not wrong. It's the only scene I remember. This thing came out when I was 10 or 11 so I don't think I have most of those brain cells anymore. Millahnna (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
(laughs) If we ever meet IRL maybe we can work on killing brain cells together. Let me know if you'd like more input or edits on the article, otherwise I'm not sure I have much else to contribute; I'm not going to watch the film for you, as I don't like you that much. (grin) Doniago (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're ever in the Portland, OR area let me know. I'll buy you a Guinness and we can wax philosophical over freakishly long plot summaries. Millahnna (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
"wax philosophical over freakishly long plot summaries"? Is that a threat? You can expect a WP:ANI notification shortly! But seriously, I'm in the Burlington, VT area...closest I ever got to Portland was that I used to have a friend in Seattle, but she's since moved (back) to northern NY. I'll keep your offer in mind though. Guinness is good stuff! Doniago (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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!
I was kind of wondering about that, and was going to step in, but then I saw you'd reverted your reversion, so we're all good. Thanks! :) Doniago (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I meant to rollback an edit, but not yours :) I'm going to install a script when I get home to stop it from happening again. It's happened to me a couple of times over the past couple of months... Thanks again for understanding. Cheers! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes20:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I use a script that (usually) prompts me to enter an edit summary before making any changes. It's quite useful, since leaving a summary is good practice to begin with, and occasionally it buys me enough time to reconsider the merits of doing a rollback. Take care! Doniago (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Sources
IMDB accepts the connection between Fear of a Bot Planet and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, would that be acceptable as a source? Postdarwin (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
No. IMDb is not a reliable source for this type of information because anyone can add it to IMDb. WP:RS/IMDb. Also, please note that new Talk page threads should be added at the bottom of the page. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Question about summaries, and 3RR
Hello, Doniago. This is a noob question, the reason I ask you is because I saw your edit on recent changes, and I hope I'm not bothering you. I've just reverted a couple of edits for vandalism, and I wanted to ask you if it's there a way to automatically fabricate the edit summary as you did here. By the way, the user I reverted is still going at it on the article (Bad_Teacher). Although I understand that 3RR doesn't apply for clear vandalism, I'm hesitant to continue, so I was also wondering if you could advice me on what to do next - frankieMR (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! If you go into your Preferences and select Editing, there's an option there that will prompt you before you save an edit with a completely blank summary. If you're Undo'ing an edit you should have a summary with some text, where you can just type in additional text. If you're reverting an edit, things get a little more complicated, but using the info detailed here I set things up so that when I do a revert I get prompted to modify the edit summary automatically. If I Cancel, which I do sometimes, the revert doesn't get saved. As it's very easy to do an accidental revert, or one which two seconds later you reconsider, I find the extra time helpful on its own terms as well. All that being said, if you're a total newbie then reversions are probably something you don't need to worry about just yet. Please let me know if you have additional questions! Doniago (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, I think I've setup that script correctly. So far I've doing what I feel are uncontroversial reverts, don't know if I will venture much further but I really want to contribute with something, and I'm not cut out for content editing, so I thought of patrolling the recent changes. Also, you can't be a newbie forever, right? ;). Best regards - frankieMR (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Bashir & Flint
Your erroneous assumption, possibly due to poor phrasing on my part, appears to be that I was asserting that someone intended the title as a nod to the 1966 film. I was attempting to state that by simple observation the title of Our Man Bashiris, in fact, a nod to Our Man Flint given that both titles begin with "Our Man" followed by the surname of the story's lead character and both productions were influenced by the James Bond films. Note that this is similar to the statement made by the second paragraph of Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places where the title is, without documented reference, linked to a Johnny Lee song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbbkr (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That's somewhat of a semantic difference I'm afraid, as one can't make an unintentional nod in this manner. I'd cite some of the Futurama episode articles as examples, but what it comes down to is that even to say something is a nod you need to provide a source. Otherwise it constitutes original research. A recent example is That's Lobstertainment!. An editor claimed that Harold Zoid was a reference to Harold Lloyd, but in fact, while the name similarity was a happy coincidence, the last part of the name is actually a reference to a game that David Cohen developed, as established on the DVD commentary. Thank you for pointing out the other article though; I'll request that a citation be provided for that reference as well. If you'd like to discuss this further it might be best to use the article's Talk page so that other editors can offer their input. Doniago (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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!
Abbythecat (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Hi - I edited the Butch Patrick page. My edit was removed and I got a note from you telling me to stop making edits. 2 things: 1)there are 11 edits listed on the page, of which I made 2; I did NOT make the other 9, and they didn't come from this computer. I hardly EVER make edits. So you've got crossed-wires somewhere ... I'm getting blamed for edits I never heard of, about subjects I have NO interest in. The few edits I make are NOT destructive as you say but are HELPFUL. 2) The GYPSY RAINBOW information IS correct. I listed Butch recorded this 45 single on Metromedia in 1973. HE DID. I HAVE IT. If you google "Butch Patrick Gypsy Rainbow Metromedia single" you'll find info about it. Sometimes it shows up on ebay. It wasn't a hit but is a great song. He also recorded I.O.I.O. (b/w I WANT SUGAR) on Metromedia in 1972 -- again, just google it. Metromedia was trying to turn Butch into a Bobby Sherman pop idol (Butch said this on an old late-night talk show). Anyway - this info is TRUE and NOT HARMFUL in any way. I suggest you do a google and see I AM telling the truth. But as you noted about references - I see your point - I don't really know what would be a good refernce for it - so I will NOT add it again. But please, don't blame me for edits about ALASKA or CLEVELAND BROWNS or LARA BRANNIGAN or other people/things I know nothing about and did NOT do. Thanks. Abbythecat (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC) PS: how about I log in when I make my few edits? That way I can't get blamed for someone else's edits. Abbythecat (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not at all sure what you're talking about; diffs/links would be very helpful. I did revert an unsourced edit to Butch Patrick that was made by an IP, but I would never tell someone to stop editing; I did advise them of WP's policies about inserting unsourced material though, particularly to BLP's. Per WP:VERIFY it doesn't matter whether the information is accurate; a source is needed for the information.
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!
... for keeping an open mind. It's something I greatly respect in a Wikipedia editor. :) BTW, if you're ever looking for something else to do on the project, we can always use help at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. I spend a lot of time there (even managing to empty the category every so often!), and would be happy to help mentor you if you ever have any questions on the arcane rules of WP:MOSDAB! Best, --Elonka22:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I took a shot at Joy FM. I'd be curious to hear what you think. The gaping problem was someone's apparent attempt to add an article at the bottom, but based on the style guide there were some other minor issues as well.
As far as LD goes, I don't think any of us (you, Sharks or me) were exactly at our best...you were biased and IMO a bit aggressive at times (I think that's a fair allegation given that you initiated the undelete and have been the primary contributor of late; I don't mean it in a derogatory manner), I was somewhat out of my depth (sourcing/research is not a strength of mine, and something I'm admittedly not really inclined to dig into too deeply), and Sharks appears to be somewhat inexperienced. I really wish the conversation hadn't grown as convoluted as it did, and I wish I knew what Sharks was hoping for at the end...I understand that the definitions WP was using for sourcing may not be what they are accustomed to or "standard", but WP's definitions are the only pertinent ones in a discussion like that. In the end I'm not exactly comfortable with how things resolved (I wish more clearly uninvolved and clearly experienced editors had expressed non-ambiguous opinions (note - all I'm really saying here is that I wasn't familiar with the bulk of the editors who spoke up)), but if Sharks or anyone else feels that removing the tag was the wrong call, or that the article still doesn't meet GNG, they can reinsert the tag, nominate the article for deletion, etc.
I appreciate your offer to help mentor me, but I have to admit I have some reservations about it as well. Some of our discussion regarding LD wasn't exactly pleasant for me (I'll admit I'm still a bit disappointed that we'd reached what I considered a good concensus to table the discussion, and less than a week later it got tossed aside), and I have concerns that our personalities may not quite be compatible enough for a solid mentoring relationship. That's not a "no", but voicing my concerns seems only fair. Doniago (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I like to think that I tailor my approach to the needs of the situation. And yes, I was probably more aggressive than usual on that article, but I felt that it was an appropriate response considering that there appeared to be other agendas that were repeatedly trying to get the article deleted. Being passive would have meant the article never got restored, or would just be going through more cycles of delete/restore/delete/restore, which I didn't want to see happen. So I wanted to throw a bunch of sources at the article, get it firmly "paperweighted" onto Wikipedia, and then let the battleground folks move on to some other poster-child. But anyway, could we perhaps mark this down as "water under the bridge", and move forward in a more positive way? I can tell that you care deeply about Wikipedia. I see how hard you work! So, moving on to WP:MOSDAB: At Joy FM, the first thing to do is to order the list by the first part of each line. Blue links at the top, followed by redlinks, followed by unlinked parts. But every line should have at one bluelink on it, which goes to an article where the term "Joy FM" is used somehow. If an article doesn't refer to that topic, it shouldn't be listed on the disambig page. So, want to give it another try, and then I'll take another look? Or would you like me to just go ahead and fix things, and then you can see what I did? --Elonka21:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(smiles) I'm willing to move on, sure. I'm also willing to take another stab at the DAB, and your info above is a definite help (I almost think there should be a DAB clean-up checklist now, heh), but I may not get to it until sometime Monday. It doesn't appear particularly controversial, but if you feel it shouldn't wait that long you can go ahead and work with it. Doniago (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and fix it, but I'll do it in "slow" fixes, one at a time with edit summaries, to make it more clear how it's done (normally I'd just do everything in one fell swoop). Then let me know the next page you'd like to work on, and I'll put it on my watchlist and let you have a shot at it. BTW, I love the idea of a quickref for disambig cleanup, because MOSDAB has gotten a bit esoteric. It would be something fun to work on together! --Elonka02:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
(followup) Whee! This one has been complex. On a scale of 1-10 in difficulty, this one is a 10, and I'm still working on it. Feel free to jump in and help, mainly by checking for other articles which should be added. A good way to do this is to use a Google search like this: "Joy FM" site:en.wikipedia.org That'll tell you everywhere that the term "Joy FM" shows up on the English Wikipedia, and we can check to see if there are any that should be added to the disambig page, that got missed! --Elonka18:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: your reversion of my Family Feud edit
The information that I put into the page that you reverted is listed in the page's infobox. If you're going to revert my edit remove it from there too. I reverted to the previous edit. --173.54.203.93 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. There was already a Taping Locations section that was unsourced, so your addition would have been redundant in any case. That being said, neither the infobox info nor the Taping Locations section had any sourcing. Given that the article has been tagged for needing sourcing, I've moved the section to the Talk page and deleted the information from the infobox. Doniago (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Trading Places Revision
I am curious as to why you saw fit to remove the information regarding the characters from this movie appearing in a later movie with the same star and director. The information is on that movie page, true, but anyone looking up this movie may not be familiar with that movie and would never know about the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.229.4.2 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Because it needs sourcing, as I believe I noted on your Talk page. Otherwise it constitutes original research. Also, please note that sourcing to other WP articles isn't appropriate, as those pages could always be edited to remove the appropriate connecting material, or possibly even be deleted. If you would like to discuss this further, please use the article's Talk page so that other editors can provide feedback as well. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sourcing??? Good lord!! That's why you put in a "needs citations" note, not delete the dang section! What the heck? You did read that I took the majority of that from the "Coming to America" page, right? Did you go there and delete it there, too? This is insane. So, basically, you are saying that the only way that I can tell people about that link between the two movies (which is referenced by WATCHING the movies) is to reference some other site that talks about it? Fine. It's Mickey Mouse b*ll sh*t, but I'll jump through *your* little hoops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.20.224.12 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
