User talk:Doniago/Archive 66

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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Keenser
Greetings. It was added to the list, in order to create a redirect of a stub article which keeps getting recreated.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'm not really a fan of that way of handling the situation, but I'm not immediately sure what would be a better solution either. Why people would be creating a stub article for such a minor character is a bit of a question though. DonIago (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

About the cast section in Scream
Hi Doniago, first I want to reassure you that I appreciate all the good work done in any article, the general need for stability in GAs, your header note on civility and your standing by during the last few reverts in Scream. I was accused of edit warring, but this was not my intention. I don't appreciate the spirit behind edit summaries that say Next revert and you hit 3. I don't have any feeling that "my view prevailed" and I draw no satisfaction from having aggravated any editor concerned. It was irregular to have a consensus forming away from the page, but this was beyond my choice. When I saw that all editors were aware of the discussion, however, I counted a clear consensus for having some form of cast section. Still, I would not have interfered at all had I not seen the edit by Erik, whom I consider an experienced and serious editor. Whether I was right or not, I interpreted its revert as disdain for the consensus and acted solely as a matter of principle. I see you mentioned recently that there is a content-oriented dispute now. I do see the dispute side but I also see the absence of discussion between the two sides towards finding a mutually acceptable solution. I honestly hope something good comes out of this. Best regards, Hoverfish Talk 23:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there...I'm not totally sure I understand where you're going with this, so I'll try to take it one piece at a time, if that's alright?
 * Thank you very much for the opening to your post! I do try, and it's irksome when people show up here with a total lack of assuming good faith and civility and then wonder why I'm not interested in trying to work with them. :p
 * I don't think I accused you of edit-warring? I also wouldn't leave that kind of edit summary...actually, I believe that one was left for me, though I think that editor and I have worked out our differences in the meantime. People get lost in the moment sometimes.
 * I wasn't thrilled with how a conversation was raised off the article page without any mention of it at the preexisting discussion, but that seems to be bygones at this point, and I mentioned my grievance at the time I became aware of it.
 * Personally, I don't really care all that much what the final resolution is as long as it's inline with whatever the consensus becomes (or already is). The main reason I got involved was because I saw a stable version of the article being changed to a version that had already previously been reverted with apparently good reason. At that point, it was time for a discussion, ideally to be initiated by those seeking to change the stable version. I think there were also claims that every other article has a basic Cast list, so this one should too. All I can say with regards to that is other stuff exists, and nothing in the MOS requires a barebones cast list.
 * I think the content issue has mostly been settled now, though I'm a little troubled by some of the conduct I observed in the course of the discussion. I don't (currently) feel inclined to make an issue of it myself, though.
 * Hope this clarifies any outstanding issues! Thanks for your kind message! DonIago (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to The Count of Monte Cristo (2002 film)
You are mistaken. My copyedit of The Count of Monte Cristo (2002 film) merely added a small sentence fragment that mentions an important plot detail. I am restoring your mistake. --KJRehberg (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:FILMPLOT. The plot summary is in excess of the guidelines and should be shortened, not lenghtened. DonIago (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Pink Floyd
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Pink Floyd. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2017 (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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Die Hard 2 cast section and character descriptions
Doniago, I gonna need some help argue a edit war issue with the cast section and character descriptions in Die Hard 2. The original version of the cast section has been switched back and reverted by TheOldJacobite and Deloop82. The cast section should be switch back to it's original version for WP:STATUSQUO reasons until the argument on the article's talk page is set. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mariah Carey albums discography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey albums discography. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pride (2014 film)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pride (2014 film). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

30
I don't understand why submitting a request has to be (like so much admin stuff on Wik) so complicated and rigid. I gave a link to the edits, with comments. That is where the dispute has taken place. All the same, I have now added my views in the List of fictional religions talk back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fictional_religions#Potok.27s_fictional_religion Is that enough for getting a third opinion?Kdammers (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't delete it again, but I suspect another editor will, because the instructions at 3O clearly state there needs to be evidence of a discussion, and your link points to a single post to which nobody has yet replied. DonIago (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have declined your submission at WP:3O as you did not provide a clear link to an existing discussion regarding your dispute. You are welcome to resubmit with a clear link to a discussion, or alternately consider other forms of dispute resolution. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 9:14 am, Today (UTC+6)

Please stop relisting your dispute at 3O until there has been thorough discussion of the matter, as noted in the instructions at that page. Continuing to relist your dispute there without consideration for the instructions may be considered disruptive editing. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 9:16 pm, Today (UTC+6)

No, I don't understand. There is a clear dispute. There is link to a discussion of it: the talk page of the article. I am not happy that in trying to simply get some help with a difference of opinion, my requests get deleted. Thank you for your understanding. Kdammers (talk) 10:34 pm, Today (UTC+6)
 * I have replied at your Talk page. There's no need to have this discussion in two places simultaneously. Please don't copy-paste comments that editors left in one location to another without making it clear where the comment originated. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I C&P'ed becuase I have no idea whether you would look at my page. Since this is just between us, I figured you would know whence it came.  But to the main issue:  the other party and i have both entered our views on the talk page.  Is it because we are civil and not ranting on like i see in so many disputes that i can't aks for a third opinion? Kdammers (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am watching your Talk page. If you wish to continue this discussion, you're welcome to post there and I will respond. DonIago (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2017 (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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Revert of Christmas Do-Over
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_featuring_time_loops&type=revision&diff=794560708&oldid=794477501

This revert seems harsh to me. Both the original movie and the remake have their own wikipedia entries. The original is well-sourced (the remake not, other the imdb). Are we doing readers a service here though? Both movies clearly exist and have a time loop theme. Does it really make sense to prevent inclusion for lack of some arbitrary source that is deemed more authoritative than imdb? MichiHenning (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The List article requires that entries be sourced to establish that they are indeed considered films featuring time loops; I'm less certain as to whether it's required that the source establish that a film is considered a significant example of time-looping, but that's likely been discussed on the Talk page. It's easy enough to re-add the film with a citation that could perhaps be found at the underlying film article.
 * As reverting is an action that can easily be undone, I have trouble considering it particularly harsh.
 * Also, IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source for anything beyond barebones information, as discussed at WP:RS/IMDb. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Tombstone
When you have a moment, can you take a look at the recent edits on the Tombstone film article? I am staying away to avoid an edit war, but I am sure the recent edits are incorrect. I'd like a 2nd opinion. Thanks! ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  17:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of you is correct at this time, honestly. The situation should have gone to the Talk page before both of you racked up multiple reverts. Please don't edit the article further with regard to this particular change until a consensus has been reached. I've given the IP an edit-warring notice; if you make an additional change there I would feel obligated to do the same to you. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. I wouldn't have asked for your opinion if I thought you would be less than honest.  I could cite BRD as an excuse, but I won't insult you.  As for the link, I see little chance that will ever be an article, so it will remain a redlink forever.  I fail to see how that is helpful.  But, as you say, this should be discussed.  Thanks! ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  19:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm rather hoping the consensus will be that the name shouldn't be redlinked because there's so little chance of an article coming into existence. DonIago (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW the IP got themselves blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR after I requested protection for the film article. They also think I'm biased in your favor, though I've now noted I'm just restoring the article to its last stable state. I guess we'll see what happens when they get off their block, unless they end up editing under another IP. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. He's clearly confused if he thinks you are biased in my favor, because you stated clearly above that I was edit-warring.  The difference is that I didn't revert again, believing that the IP would revert to his version and find himself blocked.  I was correct in that.  As far as I am aware, he still has not made a case for an article about that minor actor. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  19:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Their current misstep is that they seem focused on arguing general Redlink policy when it would better behoove them to focus on establishing that this actor specifically merits a redlink because an article about them stands a chance of being created at some point. The closest they've come is noting that the actor has 63(?) films listed at IMDb, but as I noted, that could just mean they were an extra 63 times. I'm hoping the comments I left there will lead them to refocus their energies upon their return. DonIago (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Information
The information in Zootopia was actually correct. In the movie, Bellwether said she framed Lionheart, when she threatens to frame Judy and Nick. I don't have a cite yet, but I've seen the movie a bunch of times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

despite seeing the movie so many times you need a Reference to put it in. No original research. Dinah In Wonderland 19:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sourcing concerns notwithstanding, I don't see how that's supported by what's shown in the film. She was doubtless hoping to get him out of office by exacerbating tensions between predators and prey animals, but she doesn't overtly frame him at any point, that I recall. DonIago (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2017 (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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:University of Notre Dame
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:University of Notre Dame. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Revenge is coming
The Lannisters send their regards! Dr.saze (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. DonIago (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)