User talk:Doniago/Archive 35

*A Separate Peace*
Doniago, thank you for your (undeserved) thank you to me regarding our talk page discussion for the A Separate Peace article, as well as for your wise counsel. I have added the section in question, but I could sorely use your assistance regarding adding the links. Please see my latest entry on the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A_Separate_Peace

If you like the new section, please feel free to edit its substance as you please.

Thanks again even if you don’t have time to render the assistance I have asked for and best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I think anyone who's willing to express the willingness to properly reference information they wish to have added to the encyclopedia deserves all the thanks I can give them. Anyway, I've commented at the Talk page noting that the refs have been cleaned up (and the tool I used). Cheers! DonIago (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Doniago, thank you so much for your kindness in answering my call for assistance. Sometimes I have managed to insert links that are relatively clean in appearance and are functional, though often they have been refined by other editors.  In this case they were totally incompletely inserted and I gave up trying after awhile.  I intend to read over a Wikipedia tutorial that I found as well as the tool you kindly referenced to see if I might learn and do better in the future.


 * I very much admire your campaign for civility and you are indeed the consummate gentleman. After having created my first and only article awhile back (regarding a subject whom I have absolutely no interest in (a British child entertainer) and had only recently heard of; I just wanted to take a crack at actually creating an article rather than merely editing them, and he presented a rare target of opportunity as he hadn’t yet had a Wiki article though he seemed to merit one by Wiki’s standards), I was invited to vote in a Wiki election for the first time.  If you decide to run for an administrative post (as you seem to indicate you might one day on your user page), please notify me and if I am still eligible to vote then rest assured you'll have my vote!


 * Thanks again and best regards, Don SchneiderHistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help, and you're too kind! Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you run into situations in the future where you think I may be of assistance. DonIago (talk) 18:00, 17 November 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) 01:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Post-Standard
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Post-Standard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:A Boy Was Born
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:A Boy Was Born. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

look @ User:Zarbon
He is a sockpuppet, not aye. Found this, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zarbon AND Requests for checkuser/Case/Zarbon. thats all i wanna tell us. please block him as such
 * As I'm not an admin I can't block users. Your best option would be to file a report at WP:SPI. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Justification of removal of references to obvious materials
Concerning your removal of my reference to the Otto Dix artwork being captured on film (CABARET), I suggest you also take a look at the original Otto Dix artwork referenced (Sylvia von Harden), take notice of the CABARET reference there - and watch the actual film, again.

When I rewatched the film these still images immediately reminded me of paintings - and their compositions! - as done by Otto Dix. During the opening scenes of CABARET it's rather obvious that Bob Fosse recreated Otto Dix's Sylvia von Harden painting with an actress - sitting exactly like in the painting and wearing her distinctive monocle.

This isn't a coincidence, but clearly suggests that the director was acquainted with Dix's Berlin and night club scene paintings and thus paid his tribute to Otto Dix by capturing some of his artwork in the language of film shots.

I can't see the necessity of providing a "source" or "reference" for something that obvious, which just adds an interesting facet to the film and the work of director Bob Fosse. Please restore my information. (Frank Bitterhof (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC))
 * Observations made by Wikipedia editors without being backed up by reliable sources are considered original research and are inappropriate for inclusion. If something is "obvious", then hopefully finding a source to substantiate it will not be particularly difficult. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 December 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 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) 01:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Track listing question
Hello! I was reading a comment you made in a recent AfD discussion about removing track listing from certain articles per the MoS. Just so I know, which part of the MoS is that and which articles should we be removing track listings from? --Cerebellum (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The guideline is specific to film articles, though it may serve as a precedent for other types of articles. MOS:FILM is where it's discussed. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thank you! --Cerebellum (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll & observation about simplifying the discussion
Thanks for doing the straw poll. That was along the lines I wanted to go in throwing out some options to begin with. Too bad many of the respondents from the previous MOS discussion are absent...I doubt they even know about this. Many likely gave up after the dubious consensus claims became the norm.

In reading the arguments in the current discussion it has become apparent to me that no inclusion of "atheist, agnostic, etc." is going to be acceptable in the infobox to some editors, regardless of the template form and descriptor. I base that on which is the response that I've gotten whenever I've asked for input on a descriptor or template change that would make "irreligious" terms acceptable. (It is sadly reminiscent of the response I've gotten from some team whine fests, when I ask them to help come up with a solution to the problem they've found.) There is so far no admission that such relevant and sourced information could be worthy of inclusion, only questions about why it is so important to allow it. It is deflection.

The question that should have been asked about five days ago, before I even entered the discussion was: "should any 'non-religious affiliation' terms be allowed in the infobox with equal weight to religion" or some such. I framed my opening in that general manner, but immediately got the silly "banana" response and the basic question was ignored thereafter. I suspect that the same ones who consider "None (...)" heresy would likewise oppose any such inclusion, but I could be wrong. Actually, I would prefer to be wrong because then consensus on a solution would be possible.

One thing I've learned from decades of troubleshooting, defining the problem is the key to solving it. Until the correct ID of the problem is made, most of the effort is wasted and you might as well put on a blindfold and throw darts. At present, the problem appears to be that one side has no interest in addressing the concern raised by Rjensen's topic creation. If the answer of a large group is that no inclusion is possible even with changes to the template, then consensus is also impossible. Red Harvest (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it was my opinion that discussion had generally stalled, and perhaps it was time to try to get tangible results instead. While obviously the results of a poll don't necessarily constitute a consensus, it is my hope that they may at least provide some guidance as to how editors tend to feel and perhaps indicate a direction forward. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reversion on Poseidon Adventure
I just took a look at your reversion of the edits made by Titanicgeek1912, and I agree with your reversion. But I really don't see any evidence of vandalism there. Dropping a level 2 warning, especially in the absence of a level 1, strikes me as possibly being a bit of an overreaction. It looks more like a case of excessive enthusiasm getting the upper hand on good judgement. I suggest looking at his/her contrib log. This is not a vandal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding has been that level 1 is good faith and level 2 is no faith, good or bad. The edits resulted in blatantly inappropriate links and suggested to me that the edits had at best been made rather carelessly (the editor didn't seem to have reviewed their own edits) and at worst were intentional vandalism. If they're not a vandal then the notice is pretty much just a case of me having wasted my time warning someone pointlessly. :) Anywho, the wording does say that the edits appear to be vandalism; there's no explicit statement that anyone believes vandalism was intended. Thanks for your concern though. I always watch the pages of editors I leave notices for, so if they express any concern there, I'll be happy to discuss it with them. DonIago (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A level one warning leaves open the possibility of good faith. Anything above that is generally understood to be an accusation of malicious intent. The wording leaves little doubt of that. When you post on someone's talk page that their edit "appears to be vandalism" I don't see any other reasonable interpretation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I re-read the information regarding the warning levels and I don't really agree with your interpretation. Level 2 is "Caution – No faith assumption, just a note.", which to my mind is basically what I said in my prior message. Saying an edit "appears to be vandalism" is only a comment on how the edit looks, it is not a reflection on the intention of the editor. If I accidentally delete a paragraph from an article it may appear to be vandalism, but in fact it is just a mistake. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In any event, I noticed that the editor in question re-inserted the same erroneous link to SS. It seems to me that they're either inserting vandalism intentionally or simply not reviewing their work, but as this is the second time they pushed that edit through and they got a notice about it the first time I'm rather less inclined to assume good faith. Even if they're "accidentally" inserting an incorrect link repeatedly, competence is required. I did note the specific issue in the warning I issued. DonIago (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless the Poseidon was not a steamship,the link is perfectly accurate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The most recent one, yes. The edit where they linked to SS? Not so much. Might I recommend that before you chastise me for what you believe to be inappropriate conduct that you grant me the same degree of good faith you are granting the editor I was reverting at the time? DonIago (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how to message you so I will leave it here, I guess. This is much too complicated for me. I did leave a reference, the link to the wikipedia page for the movie, with many references at the bottom of its page as well as the imdb but it still doesn't work so feel free to do it yourself. This is annoying. I just wanted tyo add the movie, as I have seen it and it is a time loop movie. But thrill seekers or whatever it's called is time travel, not time loop, which is why I removed it. So feel free to make the edits yourself how it should be done, thank you and have a nice day. Miss Matthau — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.128.198 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation Regarding Reliable Sources
Given your recent activity on the talk page of Verifiable, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification! I've been keeping an eye on the discussion and will chime in if I feel I have anything useful to contribute. DonIago (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hatchet Edits
Whilst I appreciate the guidelines, and the fact that it is part of your job to ensure that they are implemented properly, I was merely cleaning-up the article in question. I have noticed a massive disparity between certain pages, especially when it comes to films, and horror films in particular: some have long, well-written plot sections whilst others consist of barely a line or two, and in the past I have in fact been complemented by many users and admins on the changes and clean-ups that I have done. I also corrected some basic spelling/factual errors in the Hatchet article, which you have also undone. I just wish you had given me the chance to finish the changes I was making before reverting everything. Ash (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Three hours passed between your last edit and my reversion; I think it was reasonable for me to assume you weren't necessarily planning to make additional edits. Additionally, your edits were making a plot summary that had already been tagged for being too long even longer; it's unclear why you would have been exacerbating a problem with the article, especially since you didn't provide any explanation on the Talk page or in the form of edit summaries.
 * TL;DR I don't think there was any way for other editors to know what your intentions were, but the apparent effect was that you made an already problematic section of the article even more problematic.
 * I don't mean to be a dick here, but regarding your claim that you've received compliments for prior edits...that's not clear from your Talk page either.
 * In any event, you're welcome to undo my edits to restore your work and then continue with it. I might suggest that if you are going to wait several hours between edits that you mark the page with an appropriate template, such as Template:Under construction. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Theremin
Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia. I was reading about the theremin. I noticed you were the last to edit and I don't even know where to begin editing. I wanted to let you know under Uses> TV> that the theremin has a big role in the third season of American Horror Story, which is how I learned of it in the first place. ... I'm probably doing this so wrong... But if you want to add feel free! Maybe I'll figure it out if you don't get to it. I'm positive I'm not using proper wikipedia etiquette. So as not to ramble further I'll end off with a thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lezbeehonest (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for getting in touch! When adding occurrences in popular culture, it's usually best to provide a third-party reliable source as well; this establishes not only that it occurred, but that it was considered significant in some manner. Wikipedia articles shouldn't include indiscriminate instances of pop culture references; this is also discussed at WP:IPC. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)