User talk:Doniago/Archive 84

Tay Bridge disaster
Hello Doniago. Thanks for your message which reads as follows: "Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tay Bridge disaster, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please also see WP:IPCV. When writing about 'in popular culture' items, third-party sources are needed to demonstrate that the item is considered signifcant. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)".

Unfortunately, you removed one other contribution at the same time as you removed mine. Anyway, I restored and quoted sources for both, being the ISBN and the Publisher. And how can you possibly judge that the work by A J Cronin (which I have also read) is MORE significant than either of the other works which you removed? I believe your removal of this content is definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia which is to enhance the reader experience. Both contributions are proven by reliable sources, and are in my opinion as good as the AJ Cronin book in regards to their relevance to, and interest in the Tay Bridge Disaster. Lastly I quote "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, ...".Kimballthurlow (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your response leads me to believe that you did not read WP:IPCV or possibly did not read or understand my note. ISBN and publisher information is not third-party, does not establish that the work referencing the disaster (in this case) is considered significant, and consequently does not satisfy WP:IPCV. I did not judge the work by Cronin to be significant; that entry in the article is currently tagged for needing a citation, and I will likely delete it at a later time if one is not provided. If you feel that WP:IPCV does not enhance the reader experience, I would invite you to initiate a discussion at the appropriate Talk page so that other editors can offer their opinions on the matter. Please do note that the current standard was established by an WP:RFC, and it would likely take a new RFC to overturn the existing ruling. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Mount Mansfield page
You mentioned that you removed my links, but it appears that you reverted ALL of my edits. Was this intentional?

I put a lot of time and effort in expanding that page's info with my personal knowledge (over a decade) of that mountain. Was it all invalid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewtonJPL (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to re-add the information using citations, after ensuring that the websites you used qualify as reliable sources. Personal knowledge would be inappropriate for inclusion as it cannot be verified by other editors. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Magic Mike, et al.
I assure you my recent additions to the talk page of Magic Mike were intended in good faith. You may think my contribution was unhelpful; for that, I apologise. I have been slapped down for making contributions to a Talk page in the past, it is true; if memory serves, it was someone who treated the Talk page as their own personal fiefdom and would brook no other creative voices. You will have taken from the tone of my addition to the Talk page of Magic Mike that I was not abusive or inappropriate, and merely wished to record another insight into a cultural phenomenon. I have made dozens of contributions to other Talk pages in the past, and dozens of perfectly competent edits to articles, without incurring the wrath of anyone. If I have stepped on your toes editorially, again let me tender my most abject apology; it was not intended as an irritant or an annoyance.

Nuttyskin (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology. I may be biased because I'm not heterosexual myself, but you seemed to be making broad and unsourced (not that sourcing is required on Talk pages) characterizations about gay people without making it clear, at least to me, what, if any, ideas you were offering with regards to improving the article. I don't have an issue with you posting a new comment if it's more clear what changes you're suggesting. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2020 (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) 00:13, 6 March 2020 (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) 23:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Roald Dahl's name
Doniago, I cannot fathom what you mean by saying that my explanation of how to pronounce Roald Dahl's name is "less than neutral." It's a simple explanation of the pronunciation of his name that literally anyone can immediately understand at a glance. And it's utterly accurate and absolutely comprehensible, which is almost never the case with Wikipedia articles' pronunciation descriptions (have you ever met anyone who could comprehend that gibberish?). You can't get much more neutral than that. If you doubt me, I refer you to the episodes of Dahl's television series Way Out on YouTube. You'll instantly see during the weekly introduction that my explanation is pristinely correct: phonetically, it is precisely "Rue-all Doll." I think putting that into his Wikipedia article amounts to a public service. Could you pronounce it correctly before reading my explanation? Figure Out What&#39;s Right (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What was less than neutral was you claiming in the text you added that it was "counterintuitive". I'd invite you to look at how pronunciations have been added in other articles and do the same in the future.
 * However, it's also completely unnecessary in this case, because a pronunciation guide for Dahl's name is provided in the lead. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2020 (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) 23:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Harold & Kumar go to White Castle
I thought it'd be nice to see the bigot cops and the Extreme Sports Punks get their punishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.141.200 (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue that those details aren't really essential to the overall plot of the film. Still, if you can find a way to add them in while keeping the length of the plot under 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT, I might be okay with it. Can't speak for other editors though. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Where No Man Has Gone Before
Hello, Doniago.

In Where No Man Has Gone Before, my additions do not need citations, on account of what is written in the article pages that I add, ie, I added Star Trek: Of Gods and Men in the section Non-canon related works, based on the its own plot in its own article page... it is the same as saying that what is written in the plot is a lie (if a person disputes the plot of a book, the source is the book itself, buy and read it; if a person disputes the plot of a movie, the source is the film itself, watch it).

We all love to impose rules on others, but, if you are not familiar with simple guidelines, then don't revert changes just because you feel like it, revert them only when they really don't make sense. Thanks.

I will, therefore, add again the film (or mini-series) to the content, and hope you do not start an edit war. 05:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:67EA:CF01:48F2:490:693A:97AA (talk)


 * You need a citation to establish that Gary Mitchell's appearance is considered significant in some manner, in line with WP:IPCV. Otherwise we might as well include every mention of any of the characters in the episode in any other non-canonical material. If no sources can be found that discuss Mitchell's appearance in this series, it hardly seems signficant encough for inclusion here. If you disagree, you are welcome to raise the question at the article's Talk page so that other editors may weigh in. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So, you started an edit war:
 * 1) This is not WP:IPCV section, this is exactly different, as his related (very closely, being everything Star Trek) work (non-canon work is still related work)... But, in your edit, you use WP:TRIVIA as motive... Which is it, then?... But... read the top of WP:HTRIVIA. The given example (of Kenny McCormick and Mir) does not require citation. It is a plot element.
 * 2) See WikiProject Star Trek/Non-canon Star Trek... It appears as tough you could, very well, have been the wikipedia user referenced in Background (99,99% of probable chance it's not you, but still, it is better for you to pay attention to bad examples of "purifying" Wikipedia)...
 * 3) Let's see if the citations now included appeased you... After all, it is best for you to confront a single person (me) instead of the other editors who wrote the plot in Star Trek: Of Gods and Men article, right?... 08:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDb, and certainly couldn't be used to establish significance, but thank you for adding the other sources. I'd recommend taking out the IMDb ref, but otherwise, your additions satisfy my concerns. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2020 (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) 23:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: Mount Mansfield
Greetings, I am still new to Wikipedia so I apologize in advance if I don't understand something. I read on the article about No Original Research and I see what you mean. I usually go around to different locations and look at their different climates in the Weatherboxes because I'm interested in that sort of thing. If I see one that just has the Weatherbox and no description for it, I add one based off the information in the Weatherbox. "(Name of town) has a subarctic climate (Koppen: Dfb) with warm summers and long, cold winters", for just an example. Or if there is a description that seems incomplete, maybe with only the type of climate classification listed, I might add an additional sentence(s) describing the climate's temperatures, and any other part of it that is notable, like freezes during the summer, snowfall, precipitaion, etc. From now on I can cite the original website the Weatherbox got its information from, and start using that to help base climate descriptions. I can redo the climate description for Mount Mansfield with sourcing to make sure it is factual and not a personal analysis or synthesis as you mentioned. If I got what you were trying to say what I was doing wrong wrong, please let me know. Cheers, Old Hoar&#39;s Frost (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you got it just right there OHF. Thank you for understanding my concerns! I think as long as what you're adding matches what's said at the reference you provide, and doesn't involve interpretation on your part, you should be fine going forward. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you'll have a pleasant time contributing here! DonIago (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Cabaret edit
Hi Doniago, Got your message "I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to Cabaret (1972 film) have been removed because you cited the information you added to IMDb. As discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)" and I understand the IMDb part (which I didn't know about so thank you - I am still new to this), but wanted to know if you also meant to delete the external link I added to the film essay on the National Film Registry site because it's gone too. Adding the links has been my main focus and if I am doing them wrong I need to know! Also I had a heck of a time figuring out how to send a talk message so I hope I did it right. Lee Leander (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Lee, thanks for getting in touch; you did just fine! I didn't intend to delete anything other than the citation to IMDb, so please feel free to reinsert the essay; sorry about that! DonIago (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Escape from New York
Why did you undo my revision? --TMProofreader (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you were turning one link into two consecutive links in violation of WP:SEAOFBLUE, without any apparent consensus supporting your change, and because at least one other editor had opposed similar edits you'd made for the same reason. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)