User talk:Doniago/Archive 30

96.249.205.46
Hi. You wrote on User talk:96.249.205.46 that their edit contained original research. I believe you must have misread the edit, as "critical acclaim" is just another (nicer even?) way of writing "highly positive reviews", and doesn't actually change the essence of the article. The article in question (The Sixth Sense) would be better to not contain either phrase, and simply let the facts speak for themselves. —WOFall (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, this has been discussed at WT:FILM and the consensus at the time was that a statement such as "critical acclaim" is a stronger assertion than "highly positive reviews", and as such it should be sourced if it's going to be used. Highly positive reviews can be substantiated via Rotten Tomatoes or such; critical acclaim implies a higher degree of reception. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's surprising, but so long as there's no misunderstandings. Thanks. —WOFall (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! If it's a concern for you, you're welcome to discuss it at WT:FILM. DonIago (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello - RE: The 'Anthony Rapp' page edit
Hi Doniago, Thanks for explaining to me the issue about adding comments/explanation when editing a wiki page, I'm new to wiki editing so I appreciate the info. About the edit I made on Anthony Rapp's page, I changed the section saying he was "one of the first openly gay men on broadway" to "one of the first openly queer men" due to him identifying as specifically queer rather than gay in the interview posted beneath that. I also checked the citations next to the "openly gay" part and saw that there was no mention of him stating he was gay, rather the writers of said articles mislabeling him as such. I just checked his page and saw the clarification edited, I think that looks a lot better than the previous sentence just saying he was openly gay, so thank you for the edit. I would like to just change the part where it says "others have called him" to "others have mislabeled him as..." since it seems like a more accurate description.
 * Fair enough. As long as the information in the article matches what's said in the sources I'm happy. Thanks for getting in touch! DonIago (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re The_Farnsworth_Parabox
The The_Farnsworth_Parabox page has conflicting information. The summary on the right lists the episode as being Season four, Episode 10. The main article says that it is the "fifteenth episode of the fourth production season". The main article is correct and the summary should be updated to say Season 4, Episode 15.
 * Looks good to me now; please let me (or ideally the article's Talk page) know if you spot any other problems, and thanks for bringing this to my attention! Also, please note that new Talk page threads should generally be placed at the bottom of the page. Thanks again! DonIago (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture items
Your understanding of community consensus is incorrect. Popcult items which are straightforeward description are sourced by the media item (book, film, etc.) which they refer to. Only those items which stray into analysis or interpretation need to be sourced. PLease do not continue to edit war over an incorrect understand of what is a non-mandatory guideline  and not a policy. BMK (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems to me that if you ignore the bold, revert, discuss process then you're the one edit-warring...it also seems to me it would be best to get a consensus rather than lecturing me about whether my interpretation is correct. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that I didn't "lecture" you until your second revert of a legitimate -- i.e. not a "Bold" -- edit. BMK (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, those items were all in the Hudson Heights, Manhattan article, and have been for a long time. I moved them to Fort Tryon Park and The Cloisters because Hudson Heights was not the proper article for them, so there was no boldness involved, just simple editing. BMK (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The context helps, and thank you for providing that, but I still don't agree with your view on adding pop culture items without secondary sourcing (barring certain minimalist statements, but I think we can both agree that's not what these are). I think it would be best if we wait for additional editors to offer their perspective. DonIago (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oathkeeper. Yet again.
How long are we supposed to put up with Darkfrog24 continually edit-warring her preferred version of the Writing section into the article? She goes to talk, sure, but clearly doesn't listen to anyone there. No less than three editors, two admins, a DRN and an RfC have told here in no uncertain terms that she cannot do precisely what she is doing. You noted that you were approaching your zero tolerance point; I've reached it. We talk and talk to her on the discussion page, and she essentially tells us we are all stupid, reiterates how she is right and everyone else is wrong, and then does whatever she wants. She wants that chapter material in, and doesn't care what sort of crap sources she shoves in there to fulfill a requirement she herself has stated she doesn't believe in. It's time something was done, since the article is going nowhere this way. She is the sort of contributor who chases editors away from articles, from collaboration and from Wikipedia itself. Please do something. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, no intent to do anything? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I must have missed your original message; sorry about that. I'm not an admin, but I guess my suggestions would be that you speak with either the individual who closed the RfC or the admin who blocked you both; either one of them is in a position of greater authority to work on the problem than I am. If you feel Darkfrog is edit-warring you could always try WP:ANEW but I don't know how well that would turn out. You could also try ANI again, but if you do your best chances are to focus on conduct issues and make sure you provide specific diffs. DonIago (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Corbomite Manuever
re: The corbomite maneuver & ron howard playing Balok during the roast of william shatner. you want a source? I watched it on TV, so ultimately the source is me. Is a youtube clip good enough as a source? The problem with putting youtube clips in as sources is sometimes the publicity gets the clips taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.71.53 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen YouTube clips used as references, but you'd have to make sure it's not a copyright violation. Other than that, any reliable source would do...but unfortunately Wikipedia editors aren't reliable sources. DonIago (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for the Paradoxical Beer!
I really did enjoy discussing time travel stories with you, but then I guess you got busy, because a couple of my notes to you seem to have vanished.

I am very honored, sir or madam, that you took the time to send me a beer - which I am enjoying right now, cheers! - and I apologize that I was not more timely in responding with gratitude.

Please consider me a gal who is always ready to talk about time travel stories. I hope that everything is going well with you and, again, I thank you very much.

OcelotHod (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
 * Thanks! Sorry if I missed replying to one or more messages... I was out of town for a few days (and I avoid Wikipedia on weekends), so it's entirely possible that something slipped past me! :(
 * Anywho, I'm happy to talk about time travel...just saw Edge of Tomorrow which I thought was improbably funny given the overall thrust of the film, but had a disappointing ending...though no specific subjects are coming to mind right now.
 * Hope you're doing well, and thanks again for getting in touch and for your kind words! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

3RR complaint filed against Darkfrog24
I thought you might want to know where the complaint is, as you are involved. I got tired of waiting for her to get it, but she doesn't simply thinks we are all wrong, and that's enough to edit-war. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * She was blocked for a week. If you wish, we can begin working on the article in detail later on this afternoon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I have no interest in anything GoT-related, and if not for the DRN filing I never would have gotten involved in this bondoggle. I'm happy to offer opinions regarding how editing the article should go, and I'm certainly willing to tell editors when I don't think they're behaving themselves, but I'm not really that interested in directly editing the article myself, especially given my unfamiliarity with the subject matter. That said, if it's a matter of pulling unsourced material or trimming a plot summary for wordiness, let me know. Alternately if you want to talk about your concerns on the Talk page, I'll be keeping an eye on that and chiming in if there's something I think I can handle. Sorry if that's not the answer you were hoping for, but I do hope DF will edit more collaboratively upon their return. DonIago (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I look forward to working on those bits in the article you find interesting. Do you think the plot summaries should remain separated by location, or would it be better to combine them all together in a single summary? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still talking to someone who knows nothing about the series. :p I'd use what's been done for other episodes as a precedent. DonIago (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, with regards to the block, my advice would be to make every effort not to say anything unless you feel it's absolutely imperative that you do so. I know the temptation to engage is significant, but I don't think it ultimately helps anything, and even the perception that you two are going at it again will likely do nothing but damage your own credibility if and when there's another issue. Even if DF's unblock request is granted, that may not mean they'll return to their prior behaviors, and if they do then they've obviously already further damaged their own credibility. Personally I'd like to think after this most recent episode they'll come to understand that in highly controversial situations it's not enough to keep trying to push for the same material without a clear consensus...but we'll see. DonIago (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Crap, I saw this after posting a response in DF's talk. I responded to her inquiries there, so I don't see any further need to post to her. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I skimmed your response earlier and it seemed fairly reasonable, but yeah, I'd avoid contact unless/until she approaches the OK Talk page in a more reasonable manner. If she doesn't then she's probably just digging her hole deeper, and if it becomes another DRN situation or what-not then that'll be a different story. DonIago (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to be a little amused by the way DF can't make a post about this whole thing without then modifying it multiple times. That's probably not very nice of me, but I think everyone knows I'm beyond fed up with the way the whole Oathkeeper thing proceeded. DonIago (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't replied to Darkfrog on their talk page; that's exactly the kind of engagement that I think isn't helpful; let the admins handle it. I'd recommend striking or removing your comment rather than presenting the appearance that you're going to continue confronting them (even if you believe you're being helpful at the time). As I said, I think the best thing you can do is avoid engaging except when absolutely necessary. DonIago (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please 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) 00:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Edge
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Edge. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

3O noticeboard
Thank you, Don, for your suggestion. Best,Scaleshombre (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome Scales, glad I could help! Also a quick note that generally new Talk page threads should be left at the bottom rather than the top. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

leave me alone
Leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyder Hawkman (talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're talking about. AFAIK I haven't had any interaction with you since last year. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Significance of fictional elements
Hi,

As you can see, I'm very new to editing Wikipedia. I was just wondering about your reversion of the List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles page: the C&C games and especially Cat's Cradle are very popular works, I don't see how they're insignificant when the page contains substances from less-popular works and the ones I've added have their own articles. Is this just a matter of demonstrating their significance? I'm reading up on both properly sourcing and showing significance now, but if you can point me towards any specific articles explaining this issue, that would be much appreciated.

Regards, Kwlittle (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the Talk page for that article, all entries should have a reliable third-party source as a means of establishing that they achieved some level of real-world significance. If you feel other items on the list may not be appropriate despite having sourcing, I would recommend asking about that at the article's Talk page as well. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll look into it and make a post on the talk page before editing again Kwlittle (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation Museum
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation Museum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Knight Rider (1982 TV series) Category - revert
Thanks for your message and information regarding adding categories to an article. I did notice that you let stand the category "Television shows set in California." California is indicated under "Location" in the content of the article, however it is not referenced with a citation of verifiable documentation, so should that category be removed as well? If not, any additional information, for a newbie like me, as to why it shouldn't would be helpful. PizzaAddict (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Army of Darkness ending
You're right, we only see one deadite so it may be the only one he ever fights again. I'll reword it to make that clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)