|
User talk:Doniago/Archive 8
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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) 12:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC) re: v for vendettaHi. It's not original research, it's simply a translation into simpler English, which is not forbidden by WP:OR. Do you disagree with any of the translation? If not, I'll add it back in. -Arkelweis (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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) 18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Roll of Thunder, Hear My CryCan you please tell me what's wrong with the characters' names being bolded? It stands out from their description to help make each one noticeable and I don't see a problem with it. Also, it seems whatever link you're trying to post to clarify what you're doing "WP:BOLDING" has no page. Bolding is used on characters' names a lot on these pages and as far as I'm concern is okay, so can you please clarify this otherwise or I will have to undo your edit. Jabrona (talk) - 01:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jabrona (talk) that there is no harm or violation of the guideline WP:MOSBOLD. It's a guideline which clearly states it allows for exceptions. By bolding the character names in this article, it is similar to making them sub-headings for anyone searching for them, but avoids the visual problems sub-heading them would cause within the article and avoids the problem of having them appear in the contents/outline "info box" which would grow too large. By bolding the character names within the article, it makes for much easier scanning of the character names. Also, by bolding the names and defining them, this name section then acts as a definition list of those individual character names, which WP:MOSBOLD does allow the exception that definition lists can be bolded. Is this really so offensive to allow this bolding? I think not. I also think it obvioulsy does not violate WP:MOSBOLD, either in spirit or letter of the guideline. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You earned it
re: CasablancaThis edit was and is easily verified. Granted it could have been sourced but I wanted to have the information available quickly. There is certainly no need for empty threats about blocking. You want the source, here it is : http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5904. Zero no Kamen (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The SynopsisNot bad work you did on the synopsis of movie D-Tox. Could use a litte work, but other than that good job trimming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.73.225 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Greek mythology - more splittingHiya. I know you've commented before on the above article, so I thought I'd canvass your opinion re Talk:Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture#Further_splitting_into_sub-articles. If you'd care to add any views there, that'd be great. Thanks,
A barnstar for you! reThanks for the barnstar! Your support is much appreciated! :) Queenieacoustic (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Escape from Pearl BaileyI edited the American Dad! episode "Escape from Pearl Bailey"s summary, but you reverted my edits, saying that "we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you." But nothing in the summary is cited, and while I'll admit the quotes were not entirely exact, they were close, and it still describes the ending better than the existing description of the ending, which also features "blaze of glory" in quotation marks, despite the fact that no one says that in the episode.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh. That was the issue. Well, if you view the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ending and compare it with this, it's obvious it is a spoof of it. But I don't see how to prove it, and mainly don't want to bother looking for one, so fine. Just leave the article the way it is.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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) 01:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry!Sorry, I was changing back vandalism, inaccurately identified! --Onewhohelps (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Bladerunner sex sceneYou reverted an edit that indicated Deckard and Rachel have sex ... and I haven't reverted your revert. However, you should be aware that there are at least six different cuts (Scott keeps returning to the cutting room every few years and who knows, he may not be finished yet) and in at least two of those cuts it is quite implicit that they have sex (and consensual sex at that). 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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) 03:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC) The film that was called Starship TroopersThe Harry Potter analogy doesn't work. As the article referenced pointed out, the movie was retrofitted to sorta-kinda pretend to be a film based on one of the most famous military SF novels in history by one of the field's Grand Old Men, yet completely failed in representing anything meaningful from the book (regardless of one's opinion of the ideology or ideologies which the book may or may not represent). An article about the movie which glossed over this fact ignores the most notable aspects of this widely-hated film. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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) 14:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Monopoly, Chocolate EditionThe Monopoly Chocolate Edition actually does exist, see here: http://www.canadianfavourites.com/Laura_Secord_Monopoly_Chocolate_Edition_144g_p/laurasecord113.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazarian1 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Googling around finds several mentions, including http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758370/movieconnections http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s09e02-die-hippie-die which is used as an External Link reference on the WP episode page and includes a video clip of The Core parody Google +"fish" +"the core", results for eeggs.com and Youtube Where does Wikipedia stand on "common knowledge" ? That is, something is generally known to be true but might not be well-documented because .. well people just know it's true. I'm trying to find the distinction between original research and common knowledge. I appreciate that some so- called "common knowledge" is misconceived or myth
Considering the southparkstudios link above, the video can be compared with the film and it would be apparent (subjective ?) that they are very similar, the "common sense" inference being made that the cartoon is a parody of the film. I accept that an inference, however well-founded it may appear to be, is not proof, so would you need (prudent ? required ?) to go a step further and get confirmation from the writer ?
If you Google +goofs +"the core" you'll get a result http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/goofs Which mentions the fish hitting the window, adding an unqualified "This was deliberately put in by filmmakers as an inside joke" Without a reference as proof I would use "possibly" or "probably" because in the context of the scene it was unlikely to be in the scripted events but that could not be known for sure. Inside jokes (or homages) are not uncommon, for example THX-1138, and some at least can be explained
Yes, it does. IRL I deal with facts (electronics to be precise) and there is not a lot of room for personal opinion, with respect to how a circuit operates at the electron level for example. You may say that one works better (an opinion) than another but that does not change how each actually does what it does (a fact)
It's in everyone's interest to do it properly. I've seen more than my fair share of poorly- written manuals and datasheets to know that seemingly minor errors can be misleading and frustrating time-wasters. I've got one on the desk right now. And two fistfulls of hair ;-))
A great believer in "Do it once, do it right". Thanks for your time and help Joe ivp (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC) ^Hi...I...um...am not really sure what this is all about. Could you please reformat things to make it more clear? If nothing else, ti's considered good form to add a new section for a new subject, rather than just putting text in at the bottom. You can do that like this- This is a new sectionTraditionally on WP messages should be in sequential order rather than inter-cut. Alternately, if you just want to add a new message summing things up at the bottom, that's fine. Sorry...I'm extremely brain-dead right now as well, which probably isn't a help. I will note that IMDb is not a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDb...the crux of the matter is that anyone can contribute to IMDb, so there's no way to tell how much of what's there is accurate in many cases. On a related note, it's not kosher to say "If you watch the video this happens, and it is clearly a reference to X," because we're still making an assumption, no matter how "obvious" it may be...the underlying reality is that it could be a coincidence. In any event, the term is synthesis, and there's a discussion of it at WP:SYNTH. What we need is someone responsible for South Park or what-not explicitly stating that "We ripped off X pretty good here" or such, or at least a reliable source noting the similarities. Otherwise it's just an editor making the claim that it's a reference, and us WP editors aren't reliable sources. (smile) Doniago (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC) kobayashi maruSince you reverted my addition as not being sourced my question is why is the "suits" also unsourced still there? TacfuJecan (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
" Goldberg, Tod (July 2010). The Giveaway. Burn Notice. Obsidian. pp. 185 and 186. ISBN 978-0-451-22979-3. " TacfuJecan (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Peter-assment
Would this captioned studio frame be acceptable ? http://www.fox.com/familyguy/photos/#tag:peter_assment:2789837 If it's established that it is in fact Richard Dreyfuss then the two film references would be OK ?
In the Jack Ruby article, the picture is included. Would it be better to link to a publication ? eg a major newspaper http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_03/RubyOswaldAP_468x407.jpg I notice that particular one is marked (c) AP. I've not seen that on other copies. However, the image is so wide-spread could it be in "fair useage" or (perhaps) public domain ? It may be viewable at Associated Press, if indeed it is (c) AP. I've tried but not got through into their image archives yet
On second thoughts, that would be an unnecessarily offensive inclusion. Ollie Williams is African-American
That's fair enough. Some episodes do have many references
No worries on that score at all. I'm aware I'm trampling around in my big muddy newbie boots Joe ivp (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'm so used to trimming quotes and posts, force of habit. I realise now that I'm editing previous content, not quoted reply
Your explanations for inclusion/exclusion are quite clear (well, becoming clearer to me anyway). This editing caper isn't quite as straightforward as I imagined. Neutrality and Verifiability. And Original Research (I know it's true, I saw it - but I can't show you somewhere where it's discussed etc) is probably counter to how most people would think I'm sure, but I understand why it's not acceptable as 'fact' If there isn't a legitimate way or even a reason for any of my suggestions to be included to the Peter-assment article that's OK. It might have been generally of interest to have a couple of them, but the chances of me swinging WP around to my way of thinking are probably, hmmmm, slim to bupkis ;-) And I've got to get past you first !!! Thanks for the patience and guidance. This has been very good practical experience, and I'll follow it up with reading more about WP policies. BTW, I've had a look at a few article Discussions. Doesn't take much to get those handbags swinging does it ? ;-)) There's some awfully touchy people out there Joe ivp (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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) 11:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? (song)Good day! My information is true. 1) Please, see here ( http://denis.schwartz.pagesperso-orange.fr/boccara.htm ) - tracklisting for the album in the section "International": 1978: An Evening With Frida Boccara (Live at Dallas Brooks Hall, Melbourne - 2 LP Philips). 2) This album and the song "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?" were also reissued on the album "Les grandes années - 1972-1988 (2010, 3 CD Marianne Mélodie) on CD № 3: ( http://www.abeillemusique.com/CD/Variete-francaise/Retro/9241142/3220019241141/Marianne-Melodie/Frida-Boccara/Les-Grandes-Annees-1972-1988/cleart-36372.html ). Excuse me for my English... :) Marchfishka (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The Dark TowerThanks for pointing that out. I've added a source.--Wyvern Rex. (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
MMJI guess you're right about the lack of sources, but for some reason the box that the "refimprove" template creates does not seem to be appearing in the article and I'm not sure why? Thegraciousfew (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Han and Greedo on Blu-rayI have reinstated the change made to the Blu-ray version on A New Hope with a outside source confirming the change to the Han shot first page. Richiekim (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotWe 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 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) 20:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC) True BloodI have on numerous occasions asked people to explain why the UK links are being removed and nobody has cared to offer an explanation. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliewellie558 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for coming back to me on this. There is no explanation as to what the reason is for my links being removed here. Just a list of things to know about editing, which have been adhered to. Perhaps you could explain to me from your point of view why there is no value in adding an official website to the True Blood page. Lets not forget that True blood is aired outside of the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliewellie558 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotWe 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 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) 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Sing SingHi there, thanks for your message. I hope this is the proper way to respond to it. You ended up deleting my edit to the "In pop culture" section to this page, asking for a source that demonstrates the significance of the item. I understand that you don't want to clutter up the page with a list of indiscriminate references. However, all the references in that section do not have any such sources. Therefore, to be fair, if you are going to delete my edit shouldn't you also delete all the listed items in that section? It seems that the determination as to what is a trivial reference or not is entirely subjective anyway. Thanks for your response in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisiello2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotWe 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 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) 00:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Animal Farm in popular cultureI suggest you read wp:notability which says explicitly: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Given that blue links only link to subjects which themselves meet the notability criterion, all items in that article pass the test. Your protestations do not override this policy for reliably published verifiable primary sources. The next step is ANI. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)  Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. |
