User talk:Doniago/Archive 8

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

re: v for vendetta
Hi. It's not original research, it's simply a translation into simpler English, which is not forbidden by WP:OR.

Do you disagree with any of the translation? If not, I'll add it back in. -Arkelweis (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) How is the translation relevant to the article? 2) Please provide a reliable source for the translation. Otherwise it seems to me that it is indeed original research since you're applying your own interpretation, but you're welcome to start a discussion at the article's Talk page so that other editors may weigh in if you feel otherwise. Doniago (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2011 (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. 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) 18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry
Can you please tell me what's wrong with the characters' names being bolded? It stands out from their description to help make each one noticeable and I don't see a problem with it. Also, it seems whatever link you're trying to post to clarify what you're doing "WP:BOLDING" has no page. Bolding is used on characters' names a lot on these pages and as far as I'm concern is okay, so can you please clarify this otherwise or I will have to undo your edit. Jabrona (talk) - 01:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That link worked for me, but you can also find the info under MOS:BOLD. The long and short of it is that list items, unless the article itself is a list, generally should not be in bold-face. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've read it over and I'm afraid I wasn't too convinced. Also, if you're saying that it generally shouldn't be the case with character names then that's basically telling me that there's no real wording on it and can be applied. I think it should in this case as the bolding does stands out on the names so it's easier to point out and track if some one wanted to know about them, and this is the case with a lot of pages on characters from other books and movies. I mean, it looks rather odd without the bolding and I think you can see what I mean. - 05:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My experience suggests that it is not appropriate to apply bolding in this case, and that character names on movie pages definitely should not be in boldface. I'm happy to start a discussion at the linked article's Talk page to get a consensus though, if you feel that's necessary. I would ask that you hold off on making the change until other editors have weighed in. Doniago (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I won't make any changes until this has been discussed with other users. Jabrona (talk) - 07:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding! I've started a discussion here. The page doesn't look particularly active, but if I don't hear anything within a couple of days I can bring it up elsewhere. Doniago (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jabrona (talk) that there is no harm or violation of the guideline WP:MOSBOLD. It's a guideline which clearly states it allows for exceptions. By bolding the character names in this article, it is similar to making them sub-headings for anyone searching for them, but avoids the visual problems sub-heading them would cause within the article and avoids the problem of having them appear in the contents/outline "info box" which would grow too large. By bolding the character names within the article, it makes for much easier scanning of the character names. Also, by bolding the names and defining them, this name section then acts as a definition list of those individual character names, which WP:MOSBOLD does allow the exception that definition lists can be bolded. Is this really so offensive to allow this bolding? I think not. I also think it obvioulsy does not violate WP:MOSBOLD, either in spirit or letter of the guideline. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that a "definition list" is an article such as "List of Simpsons Characters", not a section within a larger article.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by asking whether it's "offensive", as that was never a point of concern; my only concern is whether the bolding is kosher per policy. Clearly we are interpreting the policy differently, so getting a consensus is not only a good idea but is the standard for WP conflict resolution.
 * Also, just because a policy allows for exceptions does not mean that any exception that occurs is justified. In this case I would argue that this article should be held to the same standards as other articles about novels...what the standard is/should be is the very question I'm trying to get answered.
 * In any case, as I noted, I started a discussion to get clarification on the policy; you're welcome to contribute your opinion there, and it would be more productive than posting here at this point. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSBOLD allows exceptions, even those you might not agree with or find offensive to the standard. However, we don't even need to consider this an "exception" because WP:MOSBOLD states "definition lists" can be bolded and can be contained within articles that are not "definition list" articles. You really should start a discussion on the talk page of "Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry". That would be the proper place for this discussion about your particular concerns, rather than the WP:MOSBOLD talk page. I tried to help you guys/gals out. I agreed with Jabrona (talk) and supplied my reasoning for agreeing with him/her based on the WP:MOSBOLD guideline.  Sorry you don't agree with me.  Good day. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion where I did because I felt a general guideline applicable to all novel articles would be more useful than a guideline applied specifically to one novel article. Unfortunately it hasn't received any responses thus far. In any case, I don't find the whole thing offensive (why would I?) and I neither agree nor disagree with the appropriateness...but I would like a clear-cut answer, or at least a broader range of opinions on the subject. As I noted, I think we're interpreting "definion lists" in different manners, which is another point that should be clarified. Thank you for your feedback. Doniago (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your need to get a clear-cut answer, but Wiki does not work like that. Believe me, I have tried to get clear-cut answers myself.  You can try to convince enough people on the WP:MOSBOLD talk page that the guideline should be set in stone to meet your concerns, but that never/rarely happens on Wiki.  You can see the lack of response there. The guidelines are not cast in stone so that they can be interrupted by editors as different situations occur.  This allows for flexibility and consensus.  I still suggest you start a discussion on the talk page of "Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry" first.  You can state on that talk page that you also would like people to go comment on the WP:MOSBOLD talk page and that may help you drive more responses there and, who knows, maybe they will decide to make a clear-cut policy for your particular concern about "character name lists" within "novel articles".  I also think in this particular instance, they should clear this up with a "Novel article" policy. Good luck. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was able to get feedback here. Thank you for your input, and feel free to contribute to the discussion there if you have further thoughts on this matter. The overall lack of response is, I think, fairly regrettable...it's hard to establish consensus when nobody expresses an opinion. (smile) Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You earned it

 * Aw, thank you (blush)!!! I'd like to thank The Academy, and whomever put together that original horrifying plot summary; they certainly know how to keep me out of trouble for a good few minutes! (bows) Doniago (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

re: Casablanca
This edit was and is easily verified. Granted it could have been sourced but I wanted to have the information available quickly. There is certainly no need for empty threats about blocking. You want the source, here it is : http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5904. Zero no Kamen (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please note that new Talk page comments should be placed at the bottom of a page rather than the top in almost all cases. Secondly, as you noticed, there's no point in adding information quickly if you aren't going to provide a reference, and referencing information is standard Wikipedia policy. If you can't or don't wish to provide one, you're best off not including the information altogether. You may wish to review WP:V for more information on this. I'm not sure what you mean by empty threats about blocking...you weren't planning to keep adding unsourced information I hope, and if you were planning to do so, that would constitute disruptive behavior and in all likelihood would get you blocked. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Synopsis
Not bad work you did on the synopsis of movie D-Tox. Could use a litte work, but other than that good job trimming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.73.225 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) I might have been a bit more aggressive, but I was dealing with a movie I've never seen, so I tried to be somewhat conservative while still cutting out the fat. I agree it could use more work. Doniago (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Greek mythology - more splitting
Hiya. I know you've commented before on the above article, so I thought I'd canvass your opinion

re Talk:Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture.

If you'd care to add any views there, that'd be great. Thanks,
 * I had it on my watchlist, but I don't mind the notice. :) I've added my two cents. Doniago (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! re
Thanks for the barnstar! Your support is much appreciated! :) Queenieacoustic (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You earned it. :) My heart sank when I saw a sizable Cultural References section being added; it was such a joy to see the information sourced properly! Keep up the good work! Doniago (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Escape from Pearl Bailey
I edited the American Dad! episode "Escape from Pearl Bailey"s summary, but you reverted my edits, saying that "we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you." But nothing in the summary is cited, and while I'll admit the quotes were not entirely exact, they were close, and it still describes the ending better than the existing description of the ending, which also features "blaze of glory" in quotation marks, despite the fact that no one says that in the episode.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While the details of a plot summary do not normally need to be cited, in that it should just be describing exactly what occurs on screen, when you compare what's occuring to a film or such you need a source establishing that that was the creator's intention. Doniago (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. That was the issue. Well, if you view the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ending and compare it with this, it's obvious it is a spoof of it. But I don't see how to prove it, and mainly don't want to bother looking for one, so fine. Just leave the article the way it is.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally an interview with the writer/director or such where they explicitly say "Yeah, this is a spoof of x" would suffice, maybe on the DVD commentary. Less ideal would be a review of the episode where the similarity was discussed. Because information published here needs to be verifiable, not just accurate, we really need that kind of sourcing, even though it can be annoying to find and sometimes seems like it shouldn't be necessary...but that's what it takes for an encyclopedia. Anyway, I can totally understand why you wouldn't want to go digging it up, and anyone who seriously wants the info can go looking on IMDb or such anyhow. Doniago (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2011 (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. 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) 01:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!
Sorry, I was changing back vandalism, inaccurately identified! --Onewhohelps (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Doniago (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bladerunner sex scene
You reverted an edit that indicated Deckard and Rachel have sex ... and I haven't reverted your revert. However, you should be aware that there are at least six different cuts (Scott keeps returning to the cutting room every few years and who knows, he may not be finished yet) and in at least two of those cuts it is quite implicit that they have sex (and consensual sex at that). 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted there are multiple versions. Er...is it implicit or explicit? If it's implicit then I don't think we should be saying they do the deed, but if it's explicit then we can certainly mention it. There is a discussion regarding this very subject where everyone seemed to agree that there's no evidence that sex actually occurs. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2011 (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. 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) 03:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The film that was called Starship Troopers
The Harry Potter analogy doesn't work. As the article referenced pointed out, the movie was retrofitted to sorta-kinda pretend to be a film based on one of the most famous military SF novels in history by one of the field's Grand Old Men, yet completely failed in representing anything meaningful from the book (regardless of one's opinion of the ideology or ideologies which the book may or may not represent). An article about the movie which glossed over this fact ignores the most notable aspects of this widely-hated film. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please discuss at the article's Talk page so that other editors can provide feedback. If there is a pre-existing discussion, I will be happy to provide my input if you can link me to it. Thanks! Nevermind, I noted that you contributed to the pre-existing discussion at the article's Talk page and have added my feedback, though I think I largely repeated the points I'd made earlier, which other editors generally seemed to agree with at the time. Still, consensus can change. Doniago (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2011 (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. 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) 14:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Monopoly, Chocolate Edition
The Monopoly Chocolate Edition actually does exist, see here: http://www.canadianfavourites.com/Laura_Secord_Monopoly_Chocolate_Edition_144g_p/laurasecord113.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazarian1 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether that would technically count as a reliable source or not, but it seems reasonable to me...I never really doubted its existence per se...we just need sourcing when adding such things. You'd be welcome to put it back in with your link as a citation. I'm very, very brain-dead right now, but if you need help let me know and I'll see what I can do! Doniago (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In both of these cases, unless a reliable source has discussed the item, they're not really appropriate for inclusion

Googling around finds several mentions, including

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758370/movieconnections

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s09e02-die-hippie-die

which is used as an External Link reference on the WP episode page and includes a video clip of The Core parody

Google +"fish" +"the core", results for eeggs.com and Youtube

Where does Wikipedia stand on "common knowledge" ? That is, something is generally known to be true but might not be well-documented because .. well people just know it's true. I'm trying to find the distinction between original research and common knowledge. I appreciate that some so- called "common knowledge" is misconceived or myth


 * with regards to the South Park item, it would be original research for us to say that the episode is a reference to The Core unless a reliable source has already made this claim...we'd be making an (admittedly most likely true) assumption that the episode is referencing the film, but without having any proof

Considering the southparkstudios link above, the video can be compared with the film and it would be apparent (subjective ?) that they are very similar, the "common sense" inference being made that the cartoon is a parody of the film. I accept that an inference, however well-founded it may appear to be, is not proof, so would you need (prudent ? required ?) to go a step further and get confirmation from the writer ?


 * If reliable sourcing can be found, I would think the first item could be placed in the "Production" section (ideally with an explanation as to why the film's crew did this)


 * the second item would fit well under an "In popular culture" section. Far too often the latter tends to become a repository for editors who throw in any "reference" they find without reliable sourcing, unfortunately.

If you Google +goofs +"the core" you'll get a result

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/goofs

Which mentions the fish hitting the window, adding an unqualified

"This was deliberately put in by filmmakers as an inside joke"

Without a reference as proof I would use "possibly" or "probably" because in the context of the scene it was unlikely to be in the scripted events but that could not be known for sure. Inside jokes (or homages) are not uncommon, for example THX-1138, and some at least can be explained


 * Hope this all makes sense!

Yes, it does. IRL I deal with facts (electronics to be precise) and there is not a lot of room for personal opinion, with respect to how a circuit operates at the electron level for example. You may say that one works better (an opinion) than another but that does not change how each actually does what it does (a fact)


 * I greatly appreciate your enthusiasm for improving Wikipedia

It's in everyone's interest to do it properly. I've seen more than my fair share of poorly- written manuals and datasheets to know that seemingly minor errors can be misleading and frustrating time-wasters. I've got one on the desk right now. And two fistfulls of hair ;-))


 * and especially that you're taking the time to ask questions

A great believer in "Do it once, do it right". Thanks for your time and help

Joe ivp (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

^Hi...I...um...am not really sure what this is all about. Could you please reformat things to make it more clear? If nothing else, ti's considered good form to add a new section for a new subject, rather than just putting text in at the bottom. You can do that like this-

This is a new section
Traditionally on WP messages should be in sequential order rather than inter-cut. Alternately, if you just want to add a new message summing things up at the bottom, that's fine. Sorry...I'm extremely brain-dead right now as well, which probably isn't a help. I will note that IMDb is not a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDb...the crux of the matter is that anyone can contribute to IMDb, so there's no way to tell how much of what's there is accurate in many cases. On a related note, it's not kosher to say "If you watch the video this happens, and it is clearly a reference to X," because we're still making an assumption, no matter how "obvious" it may be...the underlying reality is that it could be a coincidence. In any event, the term is synthesis, and there's a discussion of it at WP:SYNTH. What we need is someone responsible for South Park or what-not explicitly stating that "We ripped off X pretty good here" or such, or at least a reliable source noting the similarities. Otherwise it's just an editor making the claim that it's a reference, and us WP editors aren't reliable sources. (smile) Doniago (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

kobayashi maru
Since you reverted my addition as not being sourced my question is why is the "suits" also unsourced still there? TacfuJecan (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of material that isn't appropriate for WP is not justification for adding further inappropriate information. In any case, I have removed it. Thank you for pointing it out. Doniago (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You mistake the reason for why I added it. I did not add it because of the "suits" reference, I added it because in the book Sam calls their plan the kobayashi maru and says he heard it from "Star trek the wrath of khan" so I figured it was a reference in other media.TacfuJecan (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this source make it acceptable

" " TacfuJecan (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable to me, but you could always bring it up at the article's Talk page so that other editors can offer feedback. Really though, provided that source is accurate I don't think you'd have any problems! Doniago (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter-assment

 * Richard Dreyfuss - no reliable sourcing

Would this captioned studio frame be acceptable ?

http://www.fox.com/familyguy/photos/#tag:peter_assment:2789837

If it's established that it is in fact Richard Dreyfuss then the two film references would be OK ?


 * Lee Harvey Oswald - Wikipedia links (in fact, links to any wikis or sites that accept user-submitted content) are not reliable sources

In the Jack Ruby article, the picture is included. Would it be better to link to a publication ? eg a major newspaper

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_03/RubyOswaldAP_468x407.jpg

I notice that particular one is marked (c) AP. I've not seen that on other copies. However, the image is so wide-spread could it be in "fair useage" or (perhaps) public domain ? It may be viewable at Associated Press, if indeed it is (c) AP. I've tried but not got through into their image archives yet


 * Cancun - I'm not really sure what you're going for here, sorry.

On second thoughts, that would be an unnecessarily offensive inclusion. Ollie Williams is African-American


 * Every episode of Family Guy has tons of throwaway references...we should focus on ones that third-party publications take note of.

That's fair enough. Some episodes do have many references


 * I apologize if I sound overly-critical

No worries on that score at all. I'm aware I'm trampling around in my big muddy newbie boots

Joe ivp (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (laughs) Big muddy newbie boots? Awesome. :)
 * Ack...rather than overwriting old messages with new ones, please add new messages below the older ones. You've left me trying to remember what you said originally, and I ended up needing to open an old copy of my Talk page in a separate window. Also, in particular overwriting others' Talk page comments is a big no-no, and can be considered vandalism (I'm sure that wasn't your intention here).

Sorry about that. I'm so used to trimming quotes and posts, force of habit. I realise now that I'm editing previous content, not quoted reply


 * I think the biggest issue with the Richard Dreyfuss and Lee Harvey Oswald items is that, unless FG was more transparent than I imagine they were, to take those quotes and claim they are references to the movies is ultimately synthesis unless the movies are explicitly mentioned in the episode as well. Yes, anyone familiar with the movies will realize the quotes are almost certainly being taken from the movies, but for readers unfamiliar with the movies it won't be nearly as clear, and the fact remains that it could still be an (unlikely but not impossible) coincidence. Additionally, there's the principle of weight: unless the reference is explicitly mentioned in a third-party source, for instance a reviewer saying, "The Richard Dreyfuss jokes in the episode are f'ing hilarious," it's not our place to make the references appear significant by including them in the WP article. As I mentioned, FG has tons of throwaway references in every episode; we should focus our efforts on the ones that garner attention in third-party publications.


 * The picture links you provided, consequently, won't really work unless they actually say something like, "Lee Harvey Oswald, who is parodied in the Family Guy episode "Peter-assment".


 * FWIW, you've basically stumbled headlong into some of Wikipedia's core principles - information published here needs to be reliably sourced and unambiguous and easily verified and significant. A large number of (usually new) editors end up editing articles and throwing in all kinds of information that may be true, but can't be verified because they haven't sourced it. Sometimes it's immediately deleted (I'll notify an editor that they need to source their statements if I do that), sometimes it's tagged for needing citations...in a worst-case scenario, nobody sees it, which is why reliability remains one of Wikipedia's biggest problems - how can you trust information here that could have been added by anyone and doesn't have any sources explicitly backing it up?


 * Anyway, I hope I've made my concerns clear. I really do appreciate that you're coming to me with this; your desire to be a good editor right out of the gate, and asking questions rather than just posting information and getting (usually unduly) upset when it's removed is highly commendable IMO. Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns. Doniago (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your explanations for inclusion/exclusion are quite clear (well, becoming clearer to me anyway). This editing caper isn't quite as straightforward as I imagined. Neutrality and Verifiability. And Original Research (I know it's true, I saw it - but I can't show you somewhere where it's discussed etc) is probably counter to how most people would think I'm sure, but I understand why it's not acceptable as 'fact'

If there isn't a legitimate way or even a reason for any of my suggestions to be included to the Peter-assment article that's OK. It might have been generally of interest to have a couple of them, but the chances of me swinging WP around to my way of thinking are probably, hmmmm, slim to bupkis ;-) And I've got to get past you first !!!

Thanks for the patience and guidance. This has been very good practical experience, and I'll follow it up with reading more about WP policies. BTW, I've had a look at a few article Discussions. Doesn't take much to get those handbags swinging does it ? ;-)) There's some awfully touchy people out there

Joe ivp (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I'm making some element of sense, then. :)
 * I hate to be a naysayer, but...yeah, with the sources you've provided so far I don't think you've quite satisfied the guidelines. That being said, if you look at other Family Guy episode articles, there may be Reference sections that have sources that could point you in the right direction...maybe something like Entertainment Weekly. OTOH, if you really want to add interesting stuff about Family Guy episodes but WP's requirements are too bothersome for you, there's always IMDb, where sourcing isn't an issue (and is consequently why we can't in turn use it as a source).
 * You're very welcome for all the help! Like I said, I'm glad I'm making some sense, and I truly appreciate that you're taking the time to learn the policies before making changes that might have to be reverted in any case.
 * Yeah, there are definitely some touchy WP editors out there...I think we all have our moments, though. If you want to see me get on a real soapbox about all this, check out the discussion for Animal Farm in popular culture. I'm hoping that one's been taken care of, but that could be because one of the primary dissenting editors got banned for a week for edit warring on an unrelated article. "Please discuss it at the article's Talk page, not my Talk page, so that other editors can also weigh in," and, "If you'd like to rephrase that in a more civil manner I'll be happy to consider your arguments," have become two of my bigger responses to a lot of comments lately.
 * Anyway, thank you again for being so interested in working on Wikipedia that you're willing to engage in lengthy discussions with such a pedant as myself, and I'm glad to see I haven't driven you completely insane yet! Doniago (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (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. 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) 11:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? (song)
Good day! My information is true. 1) Please, see here ( http://denis.schwartz.pagesperso-orange.fr/boccara.htm ) - tracklisting for the album in the section "International": 1978: An Evening With Frida Boccara (Live at Dallas Brooks Hall, Melbourne - 2 LP Philips). 2) This album and the song "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?" were also reissued on the album "Les grandes années - 1972-1988 (2010, 3 CD Marianne Mélodie) on CD № 3: ( http://www.abeillemusique.com/CD/Variete-francaise/Retro/9241142/3220019241141/Marianne-Melodie/Frida-Boccara/Les-Grandes-Annees-1972-1988/cleart-36372.html ). Excuse me for my English... :) Marchfishka (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello...the concern isn't so much whether your information is true, though including one of those links as a citation would be an improvement. The concern is that we don't want a list of every single cover of the song ever...rather, the list should consist of covers that have received significant third-party coverage...reviews, critical acclaim, etc...you should provide sourcing that focuses on that. Hope this makes sense, and please let me know if you have any questions! Doniago (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello... As you wish, but .... The article about Frida Boccara in English Wikipedia is very small and bad. In fact, Frida Boccara is one of the best French pop singers of XX century. Please, read the articles about her in French Wikipedia and Russian. Unfortunately, there is a little information about Frida and fans collect it bit by bit. If we talk about the importance of the singer and her level of talent, I would have put an equal sign between Frida and Edith Piaf .. Please, restore my edit in the article "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?". Best regards, Irina. Marchfishka (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure I understand what you want me to do. Regardless of the state of the Frida Boccara article or her personal status, any mention of a cover of Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? by her in the song's article should be sourced to a third-party reliable source that establishes the cover was significant in some manner...even the existence of a high-quality Wikipedia article about her wouldn't satisfy that criteria, as Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources in and of themselves. There are likely thousands of artists who have covered this song; our coverage should be limited to the ones whose performances garnered some degree of critical attention. If you feel that her cover is notable enough that it should be mentioned without any third-party sourcing, please bring it up at the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in; I can't in good conscience restore your edit without proof of the existence of such coverage. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Tower
Thanks for pointing that out. I've added a source.--Wyvern Rex. (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Doniago (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

MMJ
I guess you're right about the lack of sources, but for some reason the box that the "refimprove" template creates does not seem to be appearing in the article and I'm not sure why? Thegraciousfew (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Originally it was placed in the References section, I think. I've moved it to the top of the article, which I believe is standard. Doniago (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right, my query was that the box was not actually appearing on the MMJ page, but now it is - maybe I was looking at an old version of the page. Anyway, I'll try and get some more references in there at some stage. Regards, Thegraciousfew (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate it when that happens. :) Cheers! Doniago (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Han and Greedo on Blu-ray
I have reinstated the change made to the Blu-ray version on A New Hope with a outside source confirming the change to the Han shot first page. Richiekim (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the sourcing! Doniago (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. 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) 20:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

True Blood
I have on numerous occasions asked people to explain why the UK links are being removed and nobody has cared to offer an explanation. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliewellie558 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please always start new topics at the bottom of a user's Talk page unless they have specified otherwise. Secondly, you were given an explanation here. Thirdly, the appropriate place to discuss this is at the article's Talk page...that will also allow other editors to offer their opinions. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me on this. There is no explanation as to what the reason is for my links being removed here. Just a list of things to know about editing, which have been adhered to. Perhaps you could explain to me from your point of view why there is no value in adding an official website to the True Blood page. Lets not forget that True blood is aired outside of the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliewellie558 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated there, you were editing against consensus and did not initiate any discussion regarding your desired additions at the article's Talk page (see WP:BRD). As you apparently feel strongly about your edits, the best course of action would be for you to start a discussion at the article's Talk page explaining your views, and ideally citing policy that supports your additions. My concern is not regarding the additions themselves necessarily, simply the fact that other editors reverted you and you made no attempt to explain your additions; rather you began edit-warring, which is never an appropriate course of action. My suspicion is that, as True Blood is an American television show, the external links to an official site should be limited to the American ones, but I'm not an expert on the style guidelines for television show articles. Doniago (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect editors may claim that your additions run afoul of WP:ELOFFICIAL, which among other things states that, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". Doniago (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. 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) 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sing Sing
Hi there, thanks for your message. I hope this is the proper way to respond to it.

You ended up deleting my edit to the "In pop culture" section to this page, asking for a source that demonstrates the significance of the item. I understand that you don't want to clutter up the page with a list of indiscriminate references. However, all the references in that section do not have any such sources. Therefore, to be fair, if you are going to delete my edit shouldn't you also delete all the listed items in that section?

It seems that the determination as to what is a trivial reference or not is entirely subjective anyway.

Thanks for your response in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisiello2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Paisiello, thanks for coming to me with your concerns. In general it is probably best to express concerns at the article's Talk page, as that way other editors can also offer their opinions, but this is fine.
 * You make a valid point regarding the fact that other items listed have no sourcing establishing their significance. However, looking at the article, I see that section was tagged with a warning specifically advising editors to address this problem. Additionally, the presence of problematic items is not a valid reason to add further problematic items...see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As the warning was added to the article in August, not objectively that long ago, I suspect an editor will take steps to resolve it within the next couple of months; in any case, this isn't the time to add additional unsourced items. I removed them immediately because the contributor was identifiable and I could let them know directly; otherwise the items would likely either be sourced or removed en masse whenever I or another editor deal with the existing problem.
 * What makes an item a trivial reference is not subjective; triviality is established by the presence or absence of a third-party reliable source that discusses the item. If there are questions about whether the provided sourcing is sufficient, there are channels for discussing that, beginning with the article's Talk page.
 * I hope this sufficiently addresses your concerns. Thanks for coming to me. Doniago (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Animal Farm in popular culture
I suggest you read wp:notability which says explicitly: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Given that blue links only link to subjects which themselves meet the notability criterion, all items in that article pass the test. Your protestations do not override this policy for reliably published verifiable primary sources. The next step is ANI. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I have to laugh at the irony of you giving me a warning for this sort of thing. Go ahead and take it to ANI given that you're the one ignoring consensus on the article's Talk page and refusing to collaborate in the discussion of list criteria that the article requires per WP:LSC. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)