User talk:Doniago/Archive 5

Warning response
Sorry. I assumed that was true.-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  13:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there...the issue isn't whether it's true, but whether it's verifiable. For this kind of claim you really need to include a reliable source...otherwise it's original research. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

evilursa
I don't know who you think you are, but for you to keep taking out information regarding sctress Sarah Douglas is inappropriate. This is an encyclopedia site, and by listing current activities is NOT promotion, but making sure that it's facts are up-to-date. If a film that she's worked on is allowed to be mentioned on the site and is due to receive it's release date, then there's no issue regarding that. It would be the same to say that by announcing, for example, the release date of Kylie Minogue's new album, that would be promotion as well, so I certainly don't think it's your place to deem it as promotion and should you continue to keep removing said data, then I shall keep reinstating it and also report you to Wikipedia themselves. Making sure facts that are up to date is clearly the main issue and you're grossly overstepping the mark. Refrain from doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilursa (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you review WP:UNSOURCED and WP:VERIFY before trying to tell anyone what material is and isn't appropriate for inclusion. At no point did I suggest your goal was promotional, but if you want to assume that's what I think, go right ahead. Also, feel free to report me for removing unsourced material per WP guidelnes - it should be pretty entertaining. Tootles! Doniago (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Timmy Polo SP Investigation
Just so you don't do one too, I just submitted an investigation which can be found here. (Deftonesderrick 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
 * And now the fun begins. Doniago (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Re. "is that you, Timmy?" on Lethal Weapon 4 - yes, it was; blocked.


 * If you come across any more, please notify with a quick note here? Thanks,   Chzz  ►  00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do! Thanks for the notice! :)
 * Er...by "here" did you mean my Talk page (talk about convenient (grin)), or a location that's not clear to me? Doniago (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I do believe we may have another. User:Hanford_West just bloated Lethal Weapon 4 and is showing a remarkably similar editing style. Doniago (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I reviewed it and agree that this is the same user, and have made the block. However, in the future, it's probably easier for everyone if you go to Sockpuppet Investigations and file a case there. Thanks! -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there...I don't mean to sound think or anything, I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly...going forward I should use SPI rather than adminhelp to report any additonal socks of this user? Is there a convenient way to report additional socks for someone who already has an SPI? Their original SPI was archived...I don't know whether that's a factor in the best approach to take. Thanks for the advice! Doniago (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag away
Okay, tell me where you think cites are needed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (smile) Helps if you include a link to the article... hold on a sec... Doniago (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first two sections under Life & Career in particular contain statements that would seem to need sourcing...there are sources later on which are perhaps intended to apply to the unsourced statements, but if so, this isn't clear. I'd probably mark them for refimprove rather than doing any outright removal (unless I know an unsourced statement has -just- been added I don't like to remove it without giving people a chance to find sourcing) if the article was public and I stumbled across it. Doniago (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw the refimprove tag. Actually, I was looking for more targeted citation requests. Mind going through it again with cn tags instead? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you wouldn't say that. :) I'll see what I can do later today. Doniago (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Doniago (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You really think people are going to challenge all that information? I get (and like) the idea about making an article bulletproof, but there's kevlar and then there's tank armor. Too many citations and the article becomes unwieldy, both visually and editorially. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, working on placing those refs. Will let you know when I am done. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack...the answer is...I don't know. -I- think those statements should be cited, but my opinion isn't consensus. You should bear in mind though that BLPs are usually held to a higher standard than standard articles, especially if the material could be considered controversial. If I hadn't seen your comment on Mil's talk page I likely never would have come across the article, myself, and if it's likely to receive low traffic than it's entirely possible that unsourced statements won't be challenged.
 * I think you're in a position where you can cite them yourself, leave them uncited and hope for the best (editors may or may not challenge the statements, but since it's a BLP statements are more likely to be removed without warning), or keep them in but keep the tags as well, at which point editors may at least be more likely to leave the statements intact. I'm probably also one of the most assertive people out there as far as unsourced material goes, so you may want to talk to other editors as well before taking any steps.
 * I hope my waffling helps! Doniago (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be down on yourself, Doniago; it isn't waffling to explain your views on the subject. Everyone has the same instances where there are excpetions to most rules (its one of the many reasons we have IAR). Anyway, I've cited everything you tagged. Wanna have another look? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"It's alive...ALIVE!"
Desiree Bassett is now in mainspace. Yay! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (laughs) I'll just go ahead and file an AFD then...kidding!!! Doniago (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot templates
Interesting new templates and the wording looks good to me. Just missing a mention that there is also a manual of style for anime and manga, Comics, and television articles as well :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I wasn't aware of the anime one...does it mention length specifically? I don't believe the comics or televison ones do, which is why I omitted those. If the anime/manga guidelines are specific, you're welcome to modify the template, or I'll get around to it myself (probably later today). I am having one issue where when I sign the template the signature gets dropped to a separate line rather than being integrated...not sure how to fix that just yet, though it's an easy clean-up. Doniago (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The television one gives specific word length for episode summaries. The anime MoS points out specific lengths for summaries in chapter lists, and points to TV for episode length guidelines. :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again...finally fixed the signature bug, whew! I've added the television link. I reviewed the anime/manga link that you sent, but I don't see anything specifically mentioning word-count, which was what the templates are specifically intended to address...possibly I overlooked the pertinent section? Thanks again for your help! Doniago (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here ya go :-) Might be good to see if these can be added to Twinkle once you've finished testing -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anime/manga's added. I'll give it some time for feedback/revision before pursuing Twinkle, but thanks for the feedback and links! Doniago (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Table format
Hello. I was not aware of anything in MOS that discouraged that. I simply restored what seemed like an appropriate table that had been changed without explanation. I have no particular feelings about it one way or the other. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 14:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Magician's Nephew
Hello there, think you got the wrong talk page, I haven't edited the plot summary of this article in recent history.Mesmacat (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there...you did according to . Maybe it was unintentional? No big deal, anyway. Doniago (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobbing
I am extremely annoyed that you consider my hard work as "vandalism".
 * 1) my edits are entirely constructive -  I have added material and not deleted any material
 * 2) the edits are supported by an authoritative cited source.
 * 3) my cited source is the world's leading authority on mobbing Kenneth Westhues and it took him years to develop his list of films that feature mobbing.
 * 4) I may have to report you to Administrator intervention against vandalism to seek appropriate action against you for masking false and completely inappropriate accusations of vandalism.--Penbat (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that you already did an adminhelp and got advice, there doesn't seem to be much for me to say here other than that you might want to work on keeping your temper under control and assuming good faith rather than getting "extremely annoyed" about someone being concerned by an extremely large number of edits made in a small amount of time with no explanation provided. Edit Summaries are your friends. Doniago (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobbing
Please refrain from making entirely groundless accusations of vandalism to editors and disrupting their hard consciencious work. --Penbat (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hard to take this seriously when it comes from the very editor whose edits were called into question. Doniago (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You both might want to read Don't template the regulars - the advice is exactly what is says on the tin but also suggests AGF if you are templated in error. Exxolon (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette_alerts
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Penbat (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ant and The Aardvar
I apologize that you do not know about Pink Panther and Pals, and have become angry over this fact. Please, before going on a fit, your job as an editor is to edit things in, not complain about how you cannot do somethings on your own.

Thank you, have a nice day. :3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.237.1 (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well...I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but you should be aware that when editing a Talk page later comments should always go at the bottom rather than the top. Also, be sure to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) to the end. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay...I reviewed my changes, and it has nothing to do with me being mad or what-not, it has to do with you failing to cite a source for your changes...as I noted on your Talk page. I'm not sure what's unclear about that. Doniago (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

An explaination with regard to an edit I made on the 5th element.
The reson why I edited the 5th Element is that I thought it would be more accurate to say that film recieved mostly average review scores since that's what a films reception is about. Originally it said the film was well recieved only because it judged the film on the amount of positive reviews it recieved on Rotten Tomatoes instead of the review scores. I also included the score it got on Meta Critic.

Sorry I didn't explain before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordofni (talk • contribs) 02:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you weren't just adding the MC score, you were removing the RT score in the process. I'm in favor of adding the MC score if it's considered reliable, but that's no reason to remove the RT score, unless there's something I'm not aware of. Doniago (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nihilistic Software
Sorry, I forgot to add a source. It was inside the E3 trailer for the game where you could see Nihilistic Software's logo at the start of teh trailer.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Doniago (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rick Springfield
If you persist in replacing inappropriate tags on this article, I will feel obliged to protect it. Deb (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, before adding that template I spoke with another editor. If you feel obligated to keep removing the template I'll proceed directly to removing unsourced material. You have the option to bring it up on the article's Talk page, as I pointed out, and you are not doing so. Doniago (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder what purpose you think you are achieving by tagging an article for what you consider to be faults when you are not even prepared to specify what they are. Such tags are distracting and confusing for readers.  Please do not place them without forethought.  I checked the whole article for citation tags before I removed both the old and the new the header tag - which I am now going to remove again. Deb (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel obligated to tag the article, I felt obligated to protest your removal of a template while failing to provide an explanation or note it on the Talk page. I didn't specify the faults because you didn't ask me to. I have now done so on the article's Talk page. I fail to see how the tag is distracting/confusing...if that's the case, why is it used in the first place? I think it's very poor form to remove a template tag before consensus has been established, but since it is now referenced on the Talk page and apparently consensus is moving towards specific tagging of unsourced material...whatever. In the future I hope you will make more of an effort to clearly communicate why you are removing maintenace templates. Doniago (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - remember humour ??
Ouch! You've used a template to send a to an experienced editor. Please review Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes.

I am sending you this to try and calm the situation down before it gets out of control and to try and give a little impartial advice on avoiding confrontation :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth at this point, I checked Deb's talk page before templating her (pardon the gender assumption) and couldn't really determine whether or not they were new (admittedly I didn't try very hard). I specifically used the Level 1 form of the template because AGF is involved. Frankly, my people skills -suck- (as evidenced) especially in terms of people I don't know, and I am generally a -lot- more comfortable using text that people with presumably better people skills (or at least, more of them) have agreed upon than relying on my own not-great communication skills to say the kinds of things that that template covers. While I understand that some people get upset over being templated, the reality is...it's just a template and an editor can always remove it, or say something about it if they have a problem with it.
 * Since this is on my Talk page and not the article's, I have to admit given what I've seen there, and Deb's above comments, I'm frankly tempted to just de-watch the article and let people do whatever the heck they want with it. Yes, I didn't review the article to verify that sourcing overall was still needed, but I also didn't go pulling templates without providing explanation, and I don't see anyone talking to Deb about that (unless I missed it somewhere). It feels like I'm the only one being criticized for this, when IMO Deb didn't exactly handle it well either. Doniago (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification on the article Talk page. It doesn't exactly or entirely mitigate the points I raise above, but I greatly appreciate it! Doniago (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be taking it off mine later this evening. I only had it there as there was a review that needed ok'ing and I keep them for a few days after a review before removing them.
 * If the picture on the related page is correct then I would say you were right to call her a her :¬)
 * I chose not to mention anything to Deb as you had already put 2 comments on her page regarding the matter and I felt one more from me would not really achieve anything constructive. If any comments had been directed at you in a seeming retaliation or conflict continued thne I would probably have said somehting on her page.
 * I often pull templates that are over six months old and seem to have had attention in the area they brought question to. Often a tag will say "as discussed in the talk page" and if there is no comment in the talk page and I cannot agree with the template and there has been significant activity on the page then I wil sometimes remove those too.
 * It is all about quality. If a template says "this article" then I look and see if that is correct, if it is not and it appears there is only a problem with one section and the template is over three months old (or thereabouts) I always replace them with "this section" and add cn to each point I can see.
 * In all cases I would add a comment on the talk page and if the template is replaced I would then hide the template using the <!-- and continue the discussion on the talk page.
 * A template is there to advise editors about something remiss on the article and we are not all going to agree all the time. Each has different opinions and often one persons cn is anothers:

{{this article is completely crap out of touch with reality and needs a complete rewrite with refs on every sentence and tags at each section and at the top of the article to show how bad it really is)
 * Anyway I think I'm probably boring you now lol - I must get back to watching Brazil v Portugal anyway
 * Happy editing and hope to bump in to you again at some point
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC) (retrospectively due to lost session error)


 * Tsk...you forgot to sign your reply. :)
 * I added some specific CN tags, and I think/hope the debate's settled down, so I'll see whether anything happens with that. Glad to have gotten Deb's gender correct...I didn't check for a pic, and it's always a toss-up as to whether you should be PC and gender-neutral or take a guess and risk offending someone (who you may have already offended).
 * I'd be concerned that Deb would shrug off the messages I left since they did come from a non-objective party in the situation, but it does seem to be a moot point now. Hopefully progress has been made.
 * If Deb had removed the tag with something saying "issue has been addressed" or "unclear what still needs sourcing, please use CN tags instead" or something else, I think this mess could have been averted. I don't think a lot of editors realize exactly how important edit summaries are. My set-up prompts me for a summary any time I'm reverting edits as a cover-my-ass.
 * Anywho, I am glad we appear to be on the same page now and that the original issue with the article and reverting appears to be addressed. Thanks again for the clarification on the article's talk page. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just one word on this - I don't have a problem with someone sending me a template message if they think I've done something wrong. The fact that I've been here a long time doesn't give me any special rights - I prefer to see problems addressed even if I disagree. Deb (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Deb. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot. Doniago (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Event Horizon
And where are the verifiable and reliable sources in the other examples? How is a reference to F.E.A.R. any more verifiable and reliable to the reference from the game from Studio Trophis? I don't understand your logic if I added a definite reference. Eridani (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there aren't sources for the other examples then they shouldn't be included either. You didn't add a definite reference, you added something that could be coincidence. A reference would be someone who was involved with the development of the game saying, "This was inspired by Event Horizon." See WP:VERIFY for further information. Doniago (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In any event, wouldn't it be more effective to discuss this on the article talk page where other editors could chime in? Doniago (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I added the discussion on the talk page. Eridani (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom Hollander in Rev
Good point, I was being lazy and relying on the fact that the page about the program was cited. I hope my new edit meets your (and Wikipedia's) standards. Rojomoke (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (bites lip) Having a source is definitely an improvement, but I'm concerned that a blog may not meet the reliable source standards. I'm not going to take action on it, but others may. Even so, thanks for adding the cite and understanding where I was coming from! Doniago (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, although it's called a blog, the BBC blog site is really part of its publicity machine, so perhaps it's less unreliable than most. Rojomoke (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (nods) I'm not in a position to comment on the reliability of that source myself beyond the general "blogs are often considered unreliable" line. Like I said, I won't make an issue of it myself, but others might. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Redshirt
I didn't think it the slightest bit controversial, since the Wikipedia page for Galaxy Quest already mentions Guy Fleegman as the "redshirt" of the cast and links back to the redshirt page. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about controversial, it's about proving that it was the intention of the creators of GQ for Fleegman to be a Star Trek redshirt as opposed to someone who just fits the viewer's image of a redshirt by, say, coincidence. In this case I don't think sourcing should be particularly hard to find. See WP:VERIFY for more information. Doniago (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much any every review of the movie calls him that. But here are just a few: BeyondHollywood.com CineScene.com IMDB Aint It Cool News Reference.com Amazon.com DVDTalk. I can't find a quote from any of the writers of the show that show that was their specific intent, but it's rather obvious that it was... the sentence in the article could perhaps read something like, "The character of Guy Fleegman in Galaxy Quest is universally recognized to be a redshirt reference..." and follow with some of the above refs. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know IMDB and Amazon aren't considered reliable sources in this instance, not sure about the rest. I don't have any problems with the approach you propose though, and I'll admit that checking sources (other than for their existence) isn't one of my stronger suits, so if that's the angle taht you want to approach it from, I won't stop you. Perhaps it would be constructive to bring this up on the article's Talk page though, so that other editors could offer their advice? Doniago (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill Nighy
The lemma Vincent and the Doctor mentions Bill Nighy taking part in the episode and cites Doctor Who Magazine issue 421, 29 April 2010 as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.244.87 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the source cited there should be copied to the Bill Nighy article. A wikilink on its own terms isn't an appropriate source. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis
Hello! I responded to your message over at WP:MT :)Mark E (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification! I've got the talk page on my watchlist, but I appreciate the direct response. :) Doniago (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply
No. I did not remove content. I move content to Puss in Boots (2011 film) article. See for yourself. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 15:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please revert your edit or allow me to do that. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 15:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was unclear due to the lack of explanation in the edit summary. In any case, I'm not sure the material should be moved, but I'll leave that decision to other editors. Doniago (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I moved the content to its proper page, for better expanding and editing. I did not remove anything. Puss in Boots article previously being redirected, so I moved content to Shrek film series page (see its history) to let other editors easier add and edit without violate Wiki's law. Now it has its own page and it is my duty to move thing back to where they belong. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jadis
Granted, the IP is not helping by continuing to make edits w/o summary, but his fact is correct. WickerGuy has already admitted that his original reversion of the IP was an error. If you join the discussion at talk:White Witch we might be able to defuse the edit war. -- Elphion (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. I wasn't aware that WG's revert was considered to be in error or of the dialog. All that was apparent was continued reversions without explanation. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Went to that link but didn't actually see a current conversation...I'll see if I can figure out where it actually is, or maybe I missed something? Doniago (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, wrong link. See talk:The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe -- Elphion (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's more actual discussion (such as it is) at user talk:WickerGuy. -- Elphion (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Greatly appreciate the info and links! Doniago (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the film never uses the name Jadis in response to Doniago's request for question on my talk page. She is never named as such in any of the novel's dialogue hence I support the reversion in the article to just White Witch as it is citing dialogue from the book. As discussed earlier, her name appears only on a printed notice.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said in the discussion on one of the linked pages above, WW would in any case appear to be a more accessible term than Jadis for the casual reader. Doniago (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi, sorry for removing that tag on the Article but I though that after I removed all of the trivial information and minor awards it would have been satisfactory. I am aware that IMDB is an unreliable source for most things but does it cover awards? All awards within the article are stated on IMDB by either nomination or win here. Thanks for the help. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These days I'd advise against using IMDB for anything unless absolutely necessary. As a check against casting lists I know it's okay, but for anything else I'm not so sure. If you look at the page for Milk they have a highly-developed Awards section with non-IMDB links that may prove useful. In a worst-case scenario, I'd recommend using IMDB as a "holding-pattern" citation (to avoid possible removal of material) with the understanding that it really should be updated. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * is this a reliable ref here, unfortunately the academy awards website doesnt have a detailed list any further back than 1980. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really couldn't say...I'd recommend reviewing the guidelines at WP:RS and possibly asking for an opinion here. You might also want to bring it up on the Talk page for the article itself...that way other (quite possibly more experienced) editors can chime in as well. Doniago (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Starscream
Sorry about the prior mishap with the Starscream article. I finally figured out the best way to edit it. The previous attempt was due to the article repeating information and putting the first reference in the wrong place. That has now been fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker alpha806 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what the prior mishap was at this point, but glad it's been worked out! Doniago (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

--- before reverting peoples edits, stop and think, they might have valid points and worthwhile contributions to make, reverting their edits turns people away from helping out with wikipedia, have some consideration! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.131.25 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

also if you felt the link i included was not valid, why not simply remove the link and not all the other edits that i made, way to encourage people to help out with wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.131.25 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would in turn recommend that you assume good faith as well and give me the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming I was trying to "put the smack down on you" or something. If you aren't prepared to have your edits reverted from time to time (it happens to everyone), then I'm not sure WP is a place that's going to agree with you. Accusing people of being inconsiderate is no way to resolve differences. Doniago (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Torgo
(Copied and pasted because whatever...) So then how do I cite... er... watching the actual movie that the character is based on and the only source of any character named "Torgo"? It's asinine to assume that I need to go to theencyclopediaofbadmoviereferences.com or something to cite what is pretty damn common knowledge, especially if I link to the actual movie and someone can read and find out about Torgo. But I'm sorry, I didn't adhere to such a standard that no scholar would need cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.120.202 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having some difficulty believing you want a serious answer, but per WP:VERIFY the basis for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That something is "pretty damn common knowledge" doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion, nor does simply linking to the material allegedly being referenced. Doniago (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Pedro_thy_master's edits to Family Guy episode articles
User:Pedro thy master is, I believe, trying to improve the Family Guy episode articles on WP. Unfortunately, their edits often take the form of bloating the lead section, adding unsourced information, adding sentences with poor spelling and/or grammar, or otherwise making changes that ultimately reduce the article's quality despite what I can only assume are good intentions. I left a comment on their talk page previously; it was deleted without comment. I could really use some advice on how to deal with this well-intentioned-yet-highly-disruptive editing. Thank you for your help. Doniago (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The series is covered by a Wikipedia Project WikiProject Family Guy - I would suggest raising the issue on the project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Family Guy, you will then (hopefully) find more editors with a common interest.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Things seem to have quieted down, but I'll certainly keep this in mind if problems pop up again. Doniago (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

May the good lord bless you
Amen. Rev. Ian Cook (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...thanks? Doniago (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why
WHy do you keep or reverting my edits or changeing them on FG articals. -- Pedro J. the rookie 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the reasons I provide in my edit summaries. If you feel your edits are appropriate, please discuss them on the appropriate article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in. Doniago (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doniago, with all due respect i am a regular FG editor, acualty i am one of three that work constantly on FG articals and articals that i work on i try to get to GA, AHSNMD is wo and TMWTB is another so please do not revert and if you do wish to issue a complaint on WP: FG talk please be my guest but stop reverting my edits. -- Pedro J. the rookie 13:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I have every right to revert edits that I feel are unconstructive, and the fact that you're the only person undoing them suggests there is little consensus for your changes (I have seen other editors making changes to your material as well). If you continue to undo my edits without providing any reasons as to how your information is improving the overall quality of the article, I will bring it up on WP:FG per your request, but I would much rather you paid more attention to the quality and appropriateness of your material prior to adding it. Among other things, you frequently use poor spelling or grammar in your changes; this does not improve the article. Doniago (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point, i am not a native speaking english, other editors have their reasons, they or correct me with good explanations, the episode you keep reverting is on GAN the sentence you keep removing is a request from the reviewer, if it please it you report it to FG but let me finish my work, thank you. -- Pedro J. the rookie 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that you didn't even give me time to complete my last round of edits, where I specifically mentioned I would be re-adding some of your material momentarily, I have opened a discussion on WP:FG regarding what I feel are your well-intentioned but often counterproductive edits. Doniago (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Prem555
Hello Doniago. I've looked into the matter regarding further and posted an update at WP:ANAV (rev). I've also posted a note on Prem555's talk page. I know it's not what you were looking for, but I do not believe the latest edits are enough to justify a block at this time. However, further disruption from this user would be grounds to reevaluate though. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really looking for him to be blocked, I just want him to stop making the same set of edits repeatedly without any attempt to reach consensus or even explain his changes via edit summary (much less the Talk page). Thanks for your help! Doniago (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: reinserting warnings
As that anon. user's edit history shows, they were simply ignoring those warnings, which is why I reinserted them and added a 3rd level warning. A number of other editors were also reinserting the warnings, as well as reverting the anon.'s unhelpful edits. In such a situation, it is clear that the anon. was simply being obstinate. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 16:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In such a situation I'd just send them new, escalated warnings and then pass it off to WP:AIV as appropriate, with a note mentioning that they have been deleting the warnings. Reinserting the old warnings isn't necessary though, and technically violates policy since users are allowed to control the contents of their Talk page to a point. Have a good one! Doniago (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

FD3
I think you should look up "Vandalism" and find out what it really means. Thanks. CloudKade11 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I always appreciate feedback as to how I may improve my editing skills. Doniago (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Johann Kraus, German, unable to speak German
Hello Doniago, I don't know if I should answer you here or on "my" userpage, so I'm adding this here, too. Please remove it where unappropriate.

Why is what I contributed to the page "Johann Kraus" unconstructive? The character Johann Kraus is shown to speak German on several occasions in the comic books. His "German" is not actually German, though, but garbled German words, his meaning often unintelligible to native German speakers. This might be due to laziness on the part of the author and publisher (who, I suspect, employed translation software), or it could be intentional, but no matter what the reasons it is a defined and – to anyone who knows German – rather striking trait of Kraus' character and therefore merits mention in a Wikipedia article about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.54.31 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your Talk page. The gist is that you need to cite this information; otherwise it isn't appropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Help desk
There is a discussion at the help desk that at least peripherally involves you so I thought I'd inform you as I would want someone to inform me in similar circumstances. See here. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification! The conversation seems to be going in support of my edits...and if anyone had asked me (notably, nobody did, though since it was a Helpdesk rather than anything more serious I'm not really upset about it) I'd point out that the article was tagged for needing sources for more than three months before any precipitous removal was done, which I explicitly did to give any interested parties time to dig up sourcing. No reason folks can't put the stuff back in with sourcing...heck, no reason they couldn't put it back in -without- sourcing, though at that point I'd challenge it more directly. Doniago (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey man, you read the discussion—you're preaching to the choir:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronx Zoo
Most of the Zoo articles use bold for the exhibit names rather than separate headers (note that I'm not saying that this is necessarily right -- it's just the style I have been following). In most cases that I've seen, it's actually done with ";" so that you have a "heading" that doesn't show in the Table of Contents. I would like to see where the usage of bold as essentially a sub-heading is discouraged. You also reverted my previous edit which put the photos in the body of the article, which I know IS the preferred method. I will put that back in a while, since it is not what you seem to be objecting to in your revert. Donlammers (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Going by MOS:BOLD it would seem that bolding exhibit names isn't really proper...possibly italics would be a better way to go. If others feel that bolding is a preferred approach for this though, I'm not going to make an issue of it.
 * I didn't realize I'd changed the photos stuff...sorry about that! Doniago (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to leave it "as is" for now until we figure out the best way to do it. Currently it's being done at least four different ways (that I've seen) for zoos, so we aren't even "internally" consistent within the project. As for the photos, the second time around I think I got them arranged better anyway, so it probably helped in the long run. Donlammers (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All part of my master plan! :) Doniago (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Original research?
Hello Doniago - I'm not sure that what you edited out constitutes original research at all, unless the combination of viewing the movie and having a layman's understanding of physics is research. Let me ask you this: suppose Sarah Palin, over the course of her speaking engagements, for some reason insisted on stating that the color of the sky is pink. She used it to describe the weather, as in "what a beautiful clear pink sky today," or to indicate optimism, as in "it's pink skies from now on." She refused to change, firing from her staff and banishing from her entourage anyone that attempted to correct her pink sky obsession. If a Wikipedia editor then put in her article that "starting in September of 2010, Ms. Palin began to erroneously refer to the sky as pink in color on clear days," would pointing out that obvious contradiction of natural laws in Palin's various pronouncements be considered original research on the part of that editor?PJtP (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's original research because you don't provide any reliable sourcing to back up your claims. One of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is that statements must be verifiable, not just true.
 * In any case, there's no point in discussing this solely with me. Bring it up on the article's talk page (btw, a link to the article in question, and ideally your specific edit, would have been greatly appreciated) and allow other editors to weigh in if you feel your material is appropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read the book...
With all due respect, the information used in my recent editing of the page Tom Bombadil depicting the Harvard Lampoon's take on the character, draws directly from the novel/parody Bored Of The Rings, pages 41-50 (Signet, New American Library edition). If you have not yet read the book, I would greatly recommend it to anyone who has a sense of humour, and does not take their fantasy too seriously. Whether or not this describes your personal tastes, the description matches that within the publication, and therefore this was not an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.99.130 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review my edit summary. I did not call your addition vandalism. I removed it because it lacked reliable sourcing. If you wish to reinsert it with proper sourcing, you are welcome to do so. Alternately it can be discussed on the article's talk page, such that other editors may weigh in on the subject. Additionally, you should make an effort to establish how his inclusion in BotR is notable...otherwise the material may still be appropriate for removal...in fact, currently the entire BotR article has notability issues. Doniago (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Judd Winick
Hi. Regarding this edit, for material on the content of written works, whether books, movies, etc., including their creators, the works are considered to be self-sourcing for the purposes of Verifiability, because the material can be verified by merely obtaining a copy of the work, since such works indicate the creators in their credits. You were right about the all-caps thing, though. Nightscream (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! Doniago (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are Confused
No deletion took place. Look again. 70.36.134.156 (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you didn't do anything wrong, you're welcome to ignore and/or delete the warning. However, at least one other editor seems to feel your editing was disruptive regardless of whether you actually deleted material. I would suggest more prudence going forward. Doniago (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Duke citation
Regarding the Duke reference I posted you called me out on. I got it off of the downloadable script that comes with the recent Shout DVD release, something I indicated when writing it. Since anyone with the DVD can check this out and see for themselves. If that's not good enough, please tell what is. or tell me how I can input so it fufills Wikipedia's guidelines. EMFreyre (EMFreyre) 9:28, 14 October 2010 EST
 * That sounds reasonable enough to me; I'd recommend using the standard citation format rather than just stating in the text where it's coming from. I may have missed that part, apologies if that's the case. Thanks for getting in touch! Doniago (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtland Mead
Since when is a birthdate possibly controversial? Pais (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with sourcing it? Doniago (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is IMDB good enough? Or how about this page that's already being used as a reference for the article? Pais (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The FR reference should be fine I think. IMDB isn't generally considered reliable because it accepts user-contributed material. Doniago (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does for some things, not everything. I'm not sure just anyone can add an actor's birth date. Pais (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's probably best to err on the side of caution and use other sources when they're available. In the past there's been consensus to remove IMDb as a source and request a new reference for points in other articles...I don't think I've ever seen IMDb "win" in such cases. Personally I'll use it to verify cast lists, but that's about it...though I'll also admit that sourcing isn't one of my strengths. Doniago (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The other question is where Filmreference.com gets its info. It doesn't seem to say. If it gets its info from IMDB, well, ... Pais (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that would be a downer. (smile) Might be worth looking at other actor pages to see what sources they use that might be applicable in this case, or, if all else fails, take it to the film project's talk page to see what sources are recommended for this info. If you need links I can see what I can dig up...I'm sort of trying to work on something else while we're chatting as well. Doniago (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm content with it as is. It's not like the reputation of a former child star who hasn't worked in 4 years is going to be tarnished by us getting his birthday wrong. Pais (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This could be the end of Wikipedia as we know it!!!! (smirk) Doniago (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this conversation in passing and wanted to note that, no, IMDB does not just let anyone edit birth dates. I tried to add my own to my "single movie to my credit" page and they wouldn't let me, even when I offered to email them a scan of my frelling birth certificate and/or ID (having terrible credit I'm not worried about identity theft). And yet I still can't get them to fix the spelling of the names for The Crazies, even when linking to the movie's official site. IMDB drives me nuts. But they should be fairly reliable for birth dates ( they demand a verifiable source for that info). Now if the brithdate is in one of those one paragraph bios people type over there and not in the official birth date field, I'd question it. Anyone can type that crap. Millahnna (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! I'm still left espousing a position of "If you can source it without IMDb, please do so." Doniago (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Safety Dance
Well, I do hope you find my edit and citations to be satisfactory. I appreciate the heads up, but I do find it rather funny and ironic-- The very album I referenced has its own Wiki page, and guess which song is listed? See for yourself if you like: Request by The Awakening Ajax Ramla (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, Wikilinks by themselves are not reliable sources, especially as there's always the possibility that at some point the link could be removed, or that the linked article itself lacks proper sourcing. Doniago (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot notice
Doniago, Millahnna mentioned that she usually encounters you in working on plot summaries. I recently suggested to her a "plot notice" template to re-focus editors' contributions elsewhere in the article. You can see the discussion and the template at her talk page here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice Erik! Sorry for the late reply, I was at a sci-fi con this weekend. Doniago (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wes Anderson
Wes Anderson page is constantly vandalized by user with IP addresses in Illinois (75.57.191.220)(75.57.175.50)(71.201.120.78) changing middle name to "Mortimer" this needs to be stopped as is not factual information. What more can be done than just constantly "reverting" the info back?81.64.38.94 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Warn them, as a start. If they keep it up they'll eventually get blocked. WP:3RR may also be applicable. If you believe the 3 IP's are definitely related, you may want to look into WP:SOCK as well. As it's just a minor vandalism I wouldn't get too riled up over it, just make sure the edit's being undone and the IP's getting incremental warnings. Eventually they'll get tagged for it one way or another. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been going on for over a year. The IP addresses are hardly ever the same. I represent the living person in question and this false information is finding it's way into press articles and even a recent book, I think we are right to be "riled up" as this is ongoing and is a cause of distress for the person in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.38.94 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the problem with an encyclopedia that anyone's allowed to edit is that anyone's allowed to edit it. You could try asking for page protection, but if you're going to do that you should be prepared to prove that this same vandalism has been occurring repeatedly from multiple IP editors for a prolonged period of time. I'm not sure how difficult it is to get this protection, objectively speaking. As for it showing up elsewhere, it's rather unfortunate that anyone would consider unsourced material on Wikipedia to be reliable...I certainly don't. Please feel free to come to me with any other questions/concerns, though I'm definitely not the most knowledgable Wikipedian ever. (smile) Doniago (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Super Size Me
Hi there. You say that I don't know whether the average person would stuff themselves, but I disagree. I wouldn't stuff myself to a ridiculous extent, certainly not so frequently, and I'm sure neither would you. My point is that in Super Size Me, the guy stuffs himself to an extent that clearly makes him uncomfortable (to the point of puking), and he does this multiple times. If I ever order a super-sized meal, I would eat whatever I can, then throw away the rest. Even if I do force everything down, I would certainly not do it again. I really don't see how the average person would behave more like Morgan Spurlock than like me at McDonald's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.12.54.146 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you or I think is "normal" though. Without reliable sourcing you're talking about original research which is inappropriate for inclusion. What we need is someone considered an expert in the field saying "Spurlock was eating an above average amount of food," or something to that effect. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Picasa article is plainly wrong
Dear Doniago You say that a forum entry is not a reliable source for the face recognition issue at picasa. Well, the forum is the only offical communication channel of Google for picasa. Shall we wait until a newspaper publishes that the face recognition feature is disabled? Please tell me how you want to have the reference. Today, the content about the face recognition feature at picasa web is plainly wrong. Do we want Wikipedia to be wrong? Please comment. Best regards --Patrick Stähler (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that forum entries are not considered reliable sources. If you feel that this information should be included based on a forum entry and no other supporting information, I would encourage you to raise this point on the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in on it. FWIW, if you re-add the material at this point, it's unlikely that I'll challenge it without a corroborating editor, as I'm not sure that consensus would support me either.
 * Also, please note that new posts on Talk pages are traditionally added to the end of a page, not the beginning. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression forum entries aren't considered reliable if they could be biased or false. The forum is Google-run, so it's not just made-up information. I guess a rewording might be required, to "Google stated they took down blah blah because blah blah" so it avoids stating it as fact. But I'm pretty sure it's okay as a source, it's just a kind of informal press release, they're allowed for referencing an organization's own statements.-- occono (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with this option. Like I said, the best option might be to discuss it on the article's Talk page so that additional editors (who may be more familiar with the subject as well) can weigh in, but in any case I don't plan to challenge it further. Doniago (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2010 (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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No original research?
Then maybe Pac-Man shouldn't even be on the Saturday Supercade page. 174.58.201.3 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's no sourcing, I'd recommend requesting one with a CN tag rather than outright deleting. If there is sourcing, I'm not sure why it's an issue?
 * Also, please note that new topics should always be added to the bottom of a Talk page. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Vaughn
The article did have sources but another editor removed them in error. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film)
Why is it that people consider this a 2009 film if it was re-released in August 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaip2014 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First I'd suggest discussing article-specific concerns at the Talk page for the article rather than my Talk page. (smile) Second, I believe films are classified by their original release date, not any applicable re-release dates. Otherwise, I believe Snow White would have several. Doniago (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)