User talk:Doniago/Archive 23

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study 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 do 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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

IP Edit Warring
Concerning this edit, and others made by the same editor under various IPs (some of which you have also reverted), you may find this discussion interesting. It might be helpful to have another user chime in, so it's clear that this is not just overreaction on my or MarnetteD's part. Grandpallama (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was just attended to, but thanks for keeping me apprised! DonIago (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting is not a minor edit.
Please note that in accordance with WP:MINOR "reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances". A minor edit is "spelling and grammatical corrections", "Simple formatting", "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page", etc. Thank you for your understanding.--Anotherrerun (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that new Talk page discussions should generally be placed at the bottom of the page. As you did not provide a diff I obviously can't speak to any particular edit(s) that may have concerned you. It's possible that I mistakenly checked the Minor Edit box of course. These things happen. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Austin Powers: The Spy who Shagged me edit undo
I found out that you undid my edit with information from the actual movie, this was in the film that occurs right after the credits end as a gag and that information relating to a post-credits scene is helpful to let people know there is more after the credits. -Halokid12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Plese review WP:FILMPLOT. The two issues I have with your edit are that it makes the summary unnecessarily long and in violation of the linked guideline's recommendation, and it does not add to a reader's understanding of the plot of the film. As I mentioned in my last edit summary, I would encourage you to discuss this at the article's Talk page if you disagree with my reasoning. DonIago (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Catharism
Excuse me, but why have I received a message from you saying I made an unnecessary, unhelpful edit to 'Catharism'? I have never even visited that page, let alone edited it. Please refrain from sending me smug messages informing me that you have deleted my 'edits', clearly without checking my IP, because I can assure you that I have better things to do with my time. Amojamo (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of moving your message to the bottom of my Talk page, where new threads should generally be started.
 * The message I left the IP is a standard advisory and nothing worth getting upset about. The IP in question quite clearly did edit Catharism, as shown here. Given that sourced information was removed and no edit summary was provided, I'm sure you can understand why one might think the edit was potentially vandalism, as I noted in the advisory message I left for the IP.
 * I have no idea whether the IP making that edit is in any way related to you, but next time you visit my talk page a bit more politeness would be appreciated. DonIago (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Christopher Masterson
Hi, I'm a little confused as to your message. I didn't add any information to the article, least of all any original research. The only reason I reverted your edit was not through a problem with your edit; it was simply because somehow the edit messed up the infobox and I tried to fix it. I think there may be some crossed wires somewhere. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It appeared to me that you labeled Masterson as a protagonist in one of his roles. That's effectively original research, as without a reliable source making such a claim it's just us interpreting the archetype that we think the character is occupying. Unless his role was itself named Protagonist I suppose. Hope this makes sense! There's a pertinent dicussion at WP:PROTAGONIST as well. Please let me know if you have any other concerns! DonIago (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I know what's happened here - I undid your revision in order to see if that would fix the infobox problem (rather than because I doubted your revision), but that ended up putting the protagonist bit (which you had formerly removed) back in the article. Whoops! Thanks for the response though - the important thing is everything is back to normal. :P Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahhh...glad we got that sorted out! Sorry for the misunderstanding! DonIago (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

American Hustle
Hi, Doniago. I'm afraid I haven't seen American Hustle yet, so on the chance that you had, and given our and User:Flyer22's good work on Titanic (1997 film), I thought you might want to take a crack at the 1,000-word-plus monstrosity over there! I almost laughed when I saw the word-count! : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm entirely unfamiliar with it, but I'll see if I can take a look at it regardless. No promises as I've got a DRN case taking up some of my attention. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Slightly over 700 words now. I've de-tagged it since I'm not really sure how much further it can be trimmed...or whether I might have been overzealous. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Pomodoro Technique Link
In response to: "Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Pomodoro Technique, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)"

Donaigo, thanks for your message informing me that you removed our link from the Pomodoro Technique page.
 * Time Focusing in 2.5 minutes. The Power of the Pomodoro. : Video

Our video gives an introduction to the Pomodoro Technique that many people have found valuable. Informative videos are an integral part of learning and I believe are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please reinstate the link or provide more information as to why you think it is inappropriate to include informative videos on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.153.90 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are posting a video that you have created yourself then I believe you are in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. DonIago (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I read the conflict of interest page and I do not believe I am in violation of that policy. Here is the relevant passage:

Citing yourself[edit] Policy shortcuts: WP:SELFCITE WP:SELFCITING Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

In this case the video is very relevant to the topic at hand and will be of benefit to Wikipedia users who want information about Pomodoros.

Thanks for your consideration in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.153.90 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would recommend raising the matter at the article's Talk page so that other editors can offer their opinions. DonIago (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Should I put back the link? There does not seem to be much activity on that Talk page, so it's unlikely it would be reinstated by the "editors" there.
 * I'm also trying to understand your perspective. Do you believe the video is not relevant to the users who want information about the Pomodoro technique? If so, on what basis do you make that assessment? If you think it is relevant, please restore the link.
 * I don't believe in general that editors should insert links from pages that they maintain. Even if it isn't actually a conflict of interest it can appear to be so.
 * Whether or not the Talk page is active is immaterial, as there are always ways of getting additional opinions. For instance, an editor can request a third opinion, or there is the conflict of interest noticeboard or the external links noticeboard...or even filing a request for comment. One way or another additional opinions can be provided. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Love Never Dies
Hello

A few months ago you took issue with my change to the phrase "indefinitely postponed" to "cancelled".

The reason for my change is because the planned Broadway production WAS cancelled. This was to be directed by Jack O'Brien and was to be a transfer of the London production, which has since closed. However, Mr O'Brien is no longer attached to the project and Lloyd Webber has made it very clear in many media interviews that - IF the show comes to Broadway (which is very unlikely) - it would be the Australian production and NOT the original production - hence that particular transfer is most definitely cancelled. We can't have "indefinitely postponed" forever, so surely 4 years after its intended opening date we can now call it as such? WikiFantôme (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate links to any particular discussion we had...but I'd say in general we shouldn't say anything that a reliable source hasn't said. DonIago (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Friendly talkpage stalker passing by - User talk:WikiFantôme; | diff AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Friendly Stalker. :) As suggested by my previous comment, then, we should not say it was canceled unless a reliable source has done so. We especially should not replace a sourced claim of postponement with an unsourced claim of...well, anything, really. I'd support removing the item entirely over doing that, honestly. DonIago (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your POV tag comment
Hi and thanks for your comment at the POV tag talk page. I'm stopping by to suggest stripping any colons from the front of your comment and replacing them with an asterisk, and then bolding the word "support" since that is what I think you said. Right now it looks like you're replying to another editor, and your "support" is there, but only for the careful reader. Thanks for your attention, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I support the original proposition though, as that seemed to be stipulating that a Talk page thread must exist before an article is tagged. Please let me know if I misunderstood. DonIago (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose we're quibbling over semantics a little. You could put any summary you like in bold to help the discussion closer assess the level of consensus.  I often say something like Support with modifications.  Is that a better assessment of your view?
 * On the substance... we already allow tags to be removed if there is no thread, but we do not REQUIRE a pinpoint link to the thread in the talk parameter of the tag. Making that link a REQUIREMENT is the most important part of the proposal, and I think you agreed with that much.  The point of disagreement, I think, was in the detail part of the proposal, where I favor instructing eds to THREAD first, TAG second .  If understand you now disagree with that part.  In the proposal I failed to articulate the raionale for THREAD first, TAG second but I have added it in reply to your comment and hope you might be persuaded to change your mind.... I will likely add something explaining the advantages of THREAD first, TAG second in a PS to the opening pots later on.   Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas for making it work as best as it possibly can.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. As a recommendation you might consider breaking these into two clearly discrete proposals, i.e. 1) require that the specific thread be pinpointed, 2) require a Talk page thread before tagging. At that point I would support 1 but oppose 2. I'll say so at that thread. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems illogical to me so maybe you can explain what I don't see.
 * Example A (no problem), John starts the thread "NPOV issue", then tags the article and includes the thread name.


 * Example B (no problem), Same as A, but John forgets the thread name in the tag.  Citing the requirement for a pinpoint link, Sue reverts the tag.  John is notified of the reversion, says "crap, I forgot the thread name!" and then retags the article with the thread name.


 * Example C (trouble and mayhem maybe),  The first thing John does is to tag the article and include the thread name "Nonexistent Thread".  Immediately after posting, we have a non-sequittur, catch-22 type thing... John fulfilled the criteria to provide a link, but since the thread doesn't exist the tag is still subject to reversion.


 * For that reason, a technically logical proposal would be THREAD first, TAG second . I suppose I could live with the pinpoint link rule, and just strip the tags in example C.  Sometimes John will be busy drafting the talk thread when the reversion happens, and can retag, and sometimes John was a driveby who just made up a thread name.  So I guess I can see how the simpler way of just requiring a pinpoint name in the tag implicitly has the same result as spelling out the logical THREAD first, TAG second approach.   Still mulling...., but would welcome followup thoughts as I do so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Example D (no problem), John tags first with the thread name "NPOV issue" and before anyone reverts the tag John then starts a thread with that name.   This is fine.  I do not mean to create a rule that allows removal of a tag and meaningful discussion just because the editor reversed the order.   Was that your worry? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm trying to look at this from an AGF perspective.
 * A and B are both fine to me, though an argument could be made that B would be better if Sue notified John before reverting, to give him a chance to correct himself without having to entirely reinsert the tag. Small potatos though (IMO analogous to whether it's kosher to remove unsourced info w/out warning).
 * C - If NPOV tags are auto-dated (and the exact date could be determined from history anyway), there's no harm done in leaving the tag for a day or so (or a month potentially) and leaving a note for John asking him to fix his mistake. Could the NPOV template perhaps be coded for better handling of this? In any case, this is why I brought up the possible of a user talk template message that could be used when this scenario occurs. "Hi, I'm DonIago. I notice that you left an NPOV template on article X but the Talk page discussion that you linked to doesn't exist..." While I agree that it might be logical to Talk then Tag, that's not IMO sufficient grounds to require it.
 * D - It's one worry. I can think of other scenarios, including an editing mishap, computer crash, well-intentioned newbie, house spontaneously combusted, etc. where an editor may have had every intention of starting a Talk page thread but it just didn't happen for some reason. That's why I think we should AGF here and possibly treat this as a situation where it's best to lightly poke the editor and remove the Tag later. Actually...I wonder if we could set up a bot to flag NPOV tags pointing to invalid Talk page threads and handle removing stale ones in that manner...
 * Just my thoughts on the matter! I'm entirely willing to yield to whatever consensus may ultimately feel. DonIago (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A bot for thread-checking is a great idea, and the community can opine how much time is appropriate. The best scenario is when eds at a page can tweak that setting, just like for days-to-archiving. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback
In your recent edit to Home Improvement, you misused the rollback feature in order to undo my edit. Please review Rollback regarding when to use this option. AldezD (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: reverted edits to Schindler's List
Following up on your notification "Reverted edits by ClanCularius (talk) to last version by Betty Logan please clarify who you're talking about. Goeth article doesn't use the term"

Thank you for your feedback. I'm annotating some films as Category:Films about psychopaths based on a recent paper in Journal of Forensic Sciences titled "Psychopathy and the Cinema: Fact or Fiction?", which describes a research project, part of the results of which are a list and deeper analyses of a number of films depicting characters that exhibit behavior typical of psychopaths within the film's story.

From your comment, you don't disagree with the classification of Schindler's List as a film representing a psychopath, but you are asking me to clarify which character in the film I am talking about. If I have misunderstood you, please let me know. If I have understood you correctly, allow me to name the character identified in the research paper I am referencing: the character SS-Untersturmführer Amon Goeth is identified by the paper's authors as exhibiting "classic / idiopathic" psychopathic behavior.

I had previously added explanatory text to the page "Category:Films about psychopaths" explaining that the category applies to a prominent character in a film who display psychopathic behavior, whether playing the protagonist or one of the antagonists of the film's story.

I do not know of a mechanism within Wikipedia's "Category" mechanization that would allow a categorization tag to identify the name of the character in the film so categorized - if you know this mechanism, please point me to it and I will annotate the "Category:Films about psychopaths" within the Schindler's List article to identify the character Amon Goeth explicitly. If there is no such mechanism, please suggest an acceptable way to meet your request that the character name be identified. I will apply it to the Schindler's List article and to others as I annotate the remaining films identified by the researchers in the article I referenced.

Note: I am not sure I understand your sentence "Goeth article doesn't use the term". If this is a suggestion to add text to the Schindler's List article identifying the Amon Goeth character as one exhibiting psychopathic behavior and referencing the "Psychopathy and the Cinema: Fact or Fiction?" paper, I am happy to do so. If this is a suggestion that the Wikipedia article on the historical / real Amon Goeth be edited to mention psychopathic behaviors, I am not comfortable using the reference article for that purpose.

Thank you for you triggering comment and for any future response you may find time to make. ClanCularius (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow...that was more of a response than I expected.
 * The gist of the situation is that categories applied to an article need to be supported by the text of the article, which frequently in turn means that there need to be reliable sources that make the claim which is echoed by the text. It sounds like you may have a reliable source at hand, so I would recommend adding a supporting statement to the article with an appropriate citation, at which point the categorization will be acceptable.
 * Also, if you're going to edit Schindler's List based on Amon Goeth, might I recommend you update Amon Goeth as well? :)
 * Hope this all makes sense! Thanks for contacting me with your concerns! DonIago (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly for your prompt feedback. I understand the concern that the categories applied to an article are best supported by the text of the article itself, not solely by the original subject material (in the case of an article about an accessible item of popular culture, e.g., a novel, a film, a television program) nor by a published analysis of the work, no matter how supportable.


 * I do not feel it is appropriate to make alterations to the Amon Goeth article, as the research paper I am referencing explicitly discusses the portrayal of character in film, and does not imply any particular relationship between the filmed fiction (film script, actor's interpretation, director's vision, etc.) and the real world (Amon Goeth's actual life, documented behavior, supporting or conflicting legal testimony or other historical accounts, etc.).


 * For most films in this category (e.g., Cape Fear, American Psycho), the fictional nature of the script is evident and there is no need to comment on the behavior of a real-life person. I suggest that for the purpose of categorizing a particular film as Category:Films about psychopaths, the same limited scope applies and only articles related to the film can benefit from references to the research paper from which I am working.


 * I suggest that I add an explicit reference to the source and the psychopathy claim within the body of the Schindler's List article to meet this requirement, and reinstate the categorization entry. I will do this immediately, and look forward to your response and corrections if I fail to meet the requirements you have set forth. I hope to succeed, as there are over fifty further films analyzed by the researchers but not yet categorized as Category:Films about psychopaths in Wikipedia which I would like to categorize appropriately. ClanCularius (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Changes made as discussed - thank you for your interest and suggestions. ClanCularius (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)