Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) →GoT articles: And... |
→GoT articles: cutting this off now |
||
Line 853: | Line 853: | ||
::[[User:Anthonydraco|Anthonydraco]], I've barely done any editing on the ''[[Game of Thrones]]'' articles. Indeed, most of my editing regarding these articles so far has been limited to [[Breaker of Chains#Rape scene|the rape debate]] (meaning the [[Game of Thrones (season 4)]] article and the [[Breaker of Chains]] article) and my addition to the Critical reception section of the [[Oathkeeper]] article (meaning the Eric Goldman and Roth Cornet material). And none of those cases show me as "insistent to drag things into a lengthy discussion." So I am beyond confused as to why you seem to be indicating that I am heavily involved with the ''Game of Thrones'' articles and making the environment regarding them unpleasant or why you took such offense to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_of_Thrones&diff=610814158&oldid=610811075#Length_of_plot_summaries_for_episode_articles the discussion I started about the plot summaries]; it's a discussion that obviously needed to be had. I didn't speak badly of you or even criticize you; in fact, I stated, "Anthonydraco has stepped up to trim the plot section of those other articles as well." But if you can't handle criticism, Wikipedia is not the place for you. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 17:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
::[[User:Anthonydraco|Anthonydraco]], I've barely done any editing on the ''[[Game of Thrones]]'' articles. Indeed, most of my editing regarding these articles so far has been limited to [[Breaker of Chains#Rape scene|the rape debate]] (meaning the [[Game of Thrones (season 4)]] article and the [[Breaker of Chains]] article) and my addition to the Critical reception section of the [[Oathkeeper]] article (meaning the Eric Goldman and Roth Cornet material). And none of those cases show me as "insistent to drag things into a lengthy discussion." So I am beyond confused as to why you seem to be indicating that I am heavily involved with the ''Game of Thrones'' articles and making the environment regarding them unpleasant or why you took such offense to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_of_Thrones&diff=610814158&oldid=610811075#Length_of_plot_summaries_for_episode_articles the discussion I started about the plot summaries]; it's a discussion that obviously needed to be had. I didn't speak badly of you or even criticize you; in fact, I stated, "Anthonydraco has stepped up to trim the plot section of those other articles as well." But if you can't handle criticism, Wikipedia is not the place for you. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 17:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{od}}It would be really awesome if you guys would '''not''' get into a discussion of whatever problems you might have with each others' conduct on my Talk page. If you just feel the urge to vent to me directly, options other than publicly-viewable Wikipedia pages are available. Thank you for your consideration! [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago#top|talk]]) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:33, 30 May 2014
On the Wachowskis and Respecting a Transgender Persons Proper Gender Identity
Hi there. I absolutely do not believe my edits on the pages regarding the Wachowskis' early work (such as V for Vendetta, The Matrix Reloaded, etc) are disruptive nor do I believe they should have been removed. To continue to refer to a transgender person by their birth name when speaking of past events and/or early work is both extremely transphobic and inaccurate. Lana Wachowski is a woman and should be recognized as such. When you speak of a transgender person's life and their accomplishments, you should ALWAYS use their current name, gender pronouns, etc even when you are discussing events that occurred prior to their transition. Yes, she went by "Larry" at the time and yes she was recognized as being a part of of the "Wachowski Brothers" but both have since been renamed out of respect for Lana's transition and the credit should be given to the current name of the individual and current title of the group. At the very least, the name on its own should be changed in each article from "Larry" to "Lana" in all affiliated articles. To leave it as it is now would be blatantly transphobic, disrespectful, and harmful. As someone who is transgender and as someone who has taught week long courses about the transgender community, I feel I know what I am talking about much more so than a group of cisgender (non-transgender) individuals who most likely have had no personal experience in dealing with the transgender community. Unless you can show me evidence that Lana Wachowski herself wishes to be referred to by her birth name and be recognized as being a part of the Wachowski Brothers when speaking of her early work, I believe my changes to the articles where valid. I will be bringing up this issue on the talk pages of the individual articles as well. Tristianjjm (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would have recommended you discuss this at the article's Talk page(s), but since you're already planning to or have done that I don't have much to say here. DonIago (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't Fear the Reaper - Blue Oyster Cult
Just an FYI, removing valid information is a breach of the Wikipedia policies. Please don't remove information without just cause. Furthermore, please don't ask others to discuss when you're the one with the problem - it should be you pointing out a valid claim for removal, not me. You could, however, approach an approved admin or other leader to discuss whether they agree with your removals - instead of approaching a dead-ended situation of constantly reverting each other. ~grez868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grez868 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Good day.
~grez868
- Just as an FYI, new comments on Talk pages should generally be left at the bottom of the Talk page.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "valid" information. I left a clear edit summary explaining why I was removing the information; and if you had questions as to why I was removing the information you clearly knew how to ask what my rationale was either here or at the article's Talk page but opted not to do so.
- It is generally considered best practice to abide by a practice of bold, revert, discuss. You added information, I reverted; it's now best for you to discuss the matter if you wish to, rather than simply re-adding your material. It is highly inappropriate to say that I'm the one with the problem when no consensus has been established either way, and I stated my claim in my edit summary in all cases.
- No editor is under any impetus to approach an admin or "other leader" to seek validity for their changes to an article. It is more accurate to say that editors should seek consensus for edits that have been disputed. Which effectively means that, as you're the editor wishing to add material, you should be seeking consensus once your addition has been disputed.
- There's no such thing as a dead-end situation of constantly reverting each other. That would be edit-warring and there are specific ways of handling such a scenario.
- Just as an FYI, you can have your signature added automatically by inserting four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. Good Day. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Good day. Your summaries only explain that you don't think it is important, not that it isn't factually important. Opinions aren't fact after all. I don't say I am right either.
- Technically, if you have an issue with an article, you should actually discuss before removing to avoid an edit-war outright - just as Eddy did. As stated on the article's talk page, recaps are not a blacklisted source of information otherwise the site used would itself be blacklisted from the wiki. Everyone on here works voluntarily and it is annoying when someone just happens to start a war based on conjecture or opinion. I admit my part in the warring and apologise for doing so, but it is two sided, as you are guilty of the exact same breaches of policy.
- Finally, thanks for the tip - I just figured this out thanks to noticing my name also appearing after the signing.
Grez868 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Editors are not required to discuss removal of content before doing so, though as you've observed, if the removal itself is contested then it's usually best to start a discussion at a Talk page, barring cases of blatant vandalism or such.
- Just because a source isn't "blacklisted" doesn't mean it makes a case for including the material either. Verifiability of material is one of the criteria for inclusion; not the sole criterion.
- My opinion, which seems to be the consensus based on discussions I've had about this in the past and is in accordance with WP:IPC, is that when using a pop culture reference as a basis for significance, the reference should not merely discuss the existence of the reference but also establish in some way that it is significant. The Simpsons makes anywhere from a few to dozens of pop culture references per episode; to claim that just because The Simpsons referenced something makes it significant is, in my opinion, overstating the case. DonIago (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
Views/Day | Quality | Title | Content | Headings | Images | Links | Sources | Tagged with… |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
32 | ![]() |
M1/M3 (railcar) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
Add sources | |||
2,209 | ![]() |
Helicopter (talk) | Add sources | |||||
266 | ![]() |
Alpha and Omega 2: A Howl-iday Adventure (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Add sources |
14 | ![]() |
A. W. Lawrence (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Add sources |
323 | ![]() |
Railway electrification system (talk) | ![]() |
Add sources | ||||
443 | ![]() |
Romulan (talk) | ![]() |
Add sources | ||||
610 | ![]() |
Captain America in other media (talk) | Cleanup | |||||
1,399 | ![]() |
Batroc the Leaper (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
Cleanup | |||
65 | ![]() |
Elevated plus maze (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Cleanup |
343 | ![]() |
United Federation of Planets (talk) | ![]() |
Expand | ||||
27 | ![]() |
Triple 8 (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Expand |
2,604 | ![]() |
Red Skull (talk) | Expand | |||||
34 | ![]() |
EMD GP40-based passenger locomotives (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
Unencyclopaedic | |||
1,146 | ![]() |
Aragorn (talk) | ![]() |
Unencyclopaedic | ||||
2,752 | ![]() |
Leonard Cohen (talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |||||
22 | ![]() |
Bruno Jura Hound (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Merge |
1,181 | ![]() |
Precious (film) (talk) | Merge | |||||
136 | ![]() |
Berger Blanc Suisse (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Merge | |
121 | ![]() |
Chaser (video game) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Wikify | |
176 | ![]() |
Mirror Universe (Star Trek) (talk) | ![]() |
Wikify | ||||
3,322 | ![]() |
Sharon Carter (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
Wikify | |||
3 | ![]() |
Star Trek: Chains of Betrayal (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Orphan |
1 | ![]() |
Aaron ben Moses Teomim (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Orphan |
1 | ![]() |
Anton Bardok (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Orphan |
40 | ![]() |
Skeleton Crew (comics) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
9 | ![]() |
Charles Gibson (special effects artist) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
10 | ![]() |
American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
39 | ![]() |
Crumbs (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
43 | ![]() |
Bogey Awards (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
22 | ![]() |
Spuyten Duyvil (Metro-North station) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
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) 23:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Under Siege 2 - MPAA cuts
Hey there. I can't find any link that confirms information about MPAA cuts of Under Siege 2, even though i know that it is true, so i will not re-post the info untill i find anything official that confirms it. Thanks for the heads up. Andrew Ryder (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- No problem at all; thank you for understanding my concern. DonIago (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bourne Identity
Please Doniago, avoid the censorship. It´s constantly. The spirit from where the Wiki was made is being deluded. The idea is that each reader can make a little contribution, and if you and many other rules are constantly remaking the articles, the contributors will go. When you remove my "little" contribution (maybe 1 line?), I though that maybe I was wrong. I checked out the dictionary and I found this: 2. to film again, as a picture or screenplay; 3. a more recent version of an older film. What kind of evidence do I need to say that The Bourne Identity is a remake of a 1988 film called The Bourne Identity? If you like cinema, please try to keep the real spirit of, being honest, instead of to keep the Hollywood perspective from which, there is only one The Bourne Identity, coincidentally the bad one and the newer one. Now you can take refuge in my fail using words like: censorship, wrong, honest and others; and then, the true will be hidden within the subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.107.111 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Information published on Wikipedia should be verifiable, and editors have every right to ask for sources. This has nothing to do with censorship, and if it's a problem for editors to be asked for sources then this may not be the best place for them to contribute. If you're going to claim the film is a remake, then please provide a reliable source backing up your claim. I believe with regards to film specifically a remake means they're specifically intending to redo the previous version, and I don't see evidence of that in the article. In any case, if you believe the information should be in the article without sourcing, you're welcome to ask other editors for their opinions at the article's Talk page. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, please note that new Talk page threads should generally be started at the bottom of their respective pages. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Doniago, sorry I didn´t know where to place my response. Next time I´ll do it. I think that we have a problem about the concepts. The Bourne Identity is an "adaptation of Robert Ludlum's novel The Bourne Identity" from 1988, The Bourne Identity is an "adaptation of Robert Ludlum's novel of the same name" from 2002. You don´t consider that the second one is a remake because you consider that is another kind of adaptation of the novel. Simply, I disagree. During the last years I watch Spiderman again and again and it´s an adaptation of something (comics, videogames, old movies, and overall assimilated prototypes of collective consciousness). The plot is always the same, a spider bites a man, a thief kills his uncle, the boy acquires superpowers... If really we are going to consider that all of them are not the same that the first version, obviously one of us don´t understand what a remake is. I guess, for your excellent work, that you have a lot of experience working with movies. I saw that you are doing an excellent work here in Wikipedia, then maybe you can remake (it seems paradoxical) the article about what a remake mean related with cinema. But in my opinion, those kind of movie which are no contributing in a really new perspective, script... Shouldn´t be consider new movies, rather remakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.107.111 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think it would be best to discuss this at the film article's Talk page where other editors can offer their opinions. Essentially though, I feel if we're going to claim that the 2002 film is a remake of the 1988 film then we need a reliable source that says that. The new Amazing Spider-Man film franchise is not, for instance, a "remake" of the Raimi films to my understanding of how the term is meant to be used. As it is the 2002 film article doesn't even mention the 1988 film, which to my mind is further evidence that it wasn't a consideration. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
It´s great Doniago. Unfortunately I don´t have much time to start an article in the Talk page. Maybe the best idea would be to rethink this part in the Wiki article remake: However, the term generally pertains to a new version of an old film. Can I wrote you a private message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.107.111 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and started a discussion on the matter here. You're welcome to participate. As I've said, my belief is that we need a source establishing that the film is a remake. Arguing over the definition is, to me, somewhat beside the point. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I've re-added Logsdail to the Dahl infobox, but with details of the connection in the article. I know it's not really in the ideal place, but I couldn't see a better location for this information. Edwardx (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing a source! DonIago (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Dont Feat the Reaper
See this. It is a hard rock song. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~,
- Works for me. If you want to add that to the article, assuming you haven't already, I think that'll satisfy the source concern. Not sure why it was tagged to begin with, possibly there was some genre-warring going on there, and sourcing is the best way to settle such things. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, saying it's cited in a different article isn't appropriate per WP:CIRCULAR. I'll leave it alone for now, but I really think the best course would be to include the ref. DonIago (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it was cited in a different article. It is cited later on in the article. I see no reason why every genre listed needs to be cited when it is commonly accepted to be the case. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- If it's cited later in the same article, that's acceptable too. Wasn't clear based on what you'd said. And every genre doesn't need to be cited, but when information has been challenged? It does. WP:BURDEN is clear about that. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, your edit summary said "it's actually cited in the pop matters article". The article for the song doesn't mention Pop Matters, and the Pop Matters article does not mention this song. I have reinserted the tag. Please provide a more clear reference or discuss your rationale for why one is not required at the Talk page for the article. As the genre has been challenged, per WP:BURDEN it should be cited or removed. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing this up. I got tripped up on the fact that it's actually PopMatters. I'd searched with a space between the words based on your previous edit summary and didn't realize that Pop Matters redirects. Anyway, looks good now; thanks again! DonIago (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it was cited in a different article. It is cited later on in the article. I see no reason why every genre listed needs to be cited when it is commonly accepted to be the case. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Numbers station
You tagged Numbers station for better citations two years ago. There are now 44,[1] up from 25.[2] Would you remove the tag now, or move it to specific sections or claims? – Fayenatic London 12:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't do either one. There are still multiple sections with information that isn't sourced, and given that this is a moderately technical article (or at least, the statements lacking sources are not what I would consider "general knowledge") additional references should be provided. I would rather leave the article itself tagged then tag multiple sections. DonIago (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Colorado State University
Hi Doniago, you left a message after editing Colorado State University about a post on Doug Given. Thanks for the advice! I resubmitted my entry onto the page and added a reference like you suggested. Let me know if you think it needs anything extra. Again, I really appreciate the help. Kawika (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, though it looks like someone else is taking issue with your contribution. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Dispute regarding primary sources in GoT articles
Thanks for digging up those policies and RfCs. One of the main problems in this dispute is people not wanting to replace their own interpretations with other people's--as well they shouldn't--but not everyone has been willing to find anything other than their own word to cite. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I had some time to kill at work... :p And I was involved in at least one of those earlier situations, so it came rather readily to mind...noting it as a possible precedent seemed like a useful thing to do, though of course consensus can change. I hope I succeeded in my intention of providing information without explicitly advocating anything. I feel like I'm walking a rather tighter line with this than I might in general as well, since I am currently a DRN Volunteer, though one who hasn't actually done much in that regard and frankly is a bit of a newbie about the whole process.
- I would recommend staying away from editor conduct issues...if someone's lying, by all means correct them, but avoid ascribing motives and just focus on what the actual situation is. WP:AGF and all. Also, if a DRN coordinator feels the situation is devolving into a conduct matter they may close the filing on those grounds, and I'd like to think we all want this resolved in an amicable manner.
- Wikipedia wouldn't be nearly as interesting if editors were always willing to moderate their viewpoints to meet the opposition at least half, if not all the way. :p
- Anyway, as you've likely noticed I'm keeping an eye on things and will chime in when I feel I have anything useful to say, but am actively trying to avoid getting overly-involved with it. Though the way my luck runs I'll somehow become the de facto coordinator or something. FML. DonIago (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Bias or no bias, doing the work means you get to talk. Noting precedent was useful. Bringing up FILMDIFF gave us a de facto answer for one of the two disputed sets of text, albeit one that doesn't address the OR issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- My take on it is that it shouldn't be approached as an OR issue but as a matter of establishing via sourcing that the information was considered significant in some manner. That said, if I get more involved with the case then at this point I'm likely to ask involved parties to provide a direct quote of the disputed text. DonIago (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Bias or no bias, doing the work means you get to talk. Noting precedent was useful. Bringing up FILMDIFF gave us a de facto answer for one of the two disputed sets of text, albeit one that doesn't address the OR issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
Views/Day | Quality | Title | Content | Headings | Images | Links | Sources | Tagged with… |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
180 | ![]() |
Razor (scooter) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Add sources |
157 | ![]() |
New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (talk) | ![]() |
Add sources | ||||
694 | ![]() |
Thunderbolts (comics) (talk) | Add sources | |||||
225 | ![]() |
E (New York City Subway service) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Add sources | ||
1,815 | ![]() |
It (1990 film) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
Add sources | |||
35 | ![]() |
StatSoft (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Add sources |
1,490 | ![]() |
Marvel: Avengers Alliance (talk) | ![]() |
Cleanup | ||||
1,014 | ![]() |
Common Gateway Interface (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Cleanup | ||
71 | ![]() |
Bring It On Home (Sonny Boy Williamson II song) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
Cleanup | |||
399 | ![]() |
Hydra (comics) (talk) | ![]() |
Expand | ||||
15 | ![]() |
Jean Constantin (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Expand |
208 | ![]() |
Diamondback (comics) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Expand | ||
7 | ![]() |
Yad soledet bo (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Unencyclopaedic |
266 | ![]() |
Replicant (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Unencyclopaedic | |
1,717 | ![]() |
The Truman Show (talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |||||
24 | ![]() |
Tributes to Led Zeppelin (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Merge | ||
79 | ![]() |
Ox (comics) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Merge | ||
26 | ![]() |
Led Zeppelin covers and tributes (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
Merge | |||
698 | ![]() |
Master (Doctor Who) (talk) | ![]() |
Wikify | ||||
150 | ![]() |
Nautical time (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Wikify |
623 | ![]() |
Black Widow (Marvel Comics) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Wikify | |
1 | ![]() |
Association of Pharmaceutical Teachers of India (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Orphan |
5 | ![]() |
Axolotl (band) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Orphan |
0 | ![]() |
Acontiæ (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Orphan |
23 | ![]() |
The Essential Blue Öyster Cult (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub | |
4 | ![]() |
Black Tie Affair (TV series) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
108 | ![]() |
Sofia Shinas (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub | |
11 | ![]() |
David Snyder (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
7 | ![]() |
The Larry Sanders Show (season 2) (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
29 | ![]() |
Bakersfield P.D. (talk) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Stub |
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) 23:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Dragonlance in Genesis LPMud
Hello! I have started a discussion about that at Talk:Dragonlance#Genesis LPMud. Maybe you want to give your point of view? Cheers! Daranios (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know (though I got notified anyway since you pinged me :p ). No time to look at it right now, but I'll check it out later and say something if I feel I have...er...anything to say. DonIago (talk)
DRN
Hi Donlago, thanks for your comments on my talk page. I think your ideas for DRN moderator training are good. I'm not sure though when such a thing will ever come to be. In the meantime if you would ever like to try moderating a DRN case I would be happy to mentor you through the a case by following the case and from time to time sending you comments and guidance via email. Just let me know if and when you would like to do that. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll keep it in mind. Conversely if you see a case that doesn't look like a total minefield and that you think might play to my particular blend of talents (or lack thereof), feel free to approach me! DonIago (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Gattaca
Hello! Agree with your comment on the revision on the Gattaca page, wrt the Name section I added - indeed nothing indicates intentional meaning. I have re-added the section and indicated so. I feel the name is a very important aspect of the movie. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancatdubher (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your effort to improve the original statement; however, it still read as supposition. Wikipedia articles should not include supposition or other forms of original research. You might be able to get away with something like "The New York Times theorized that the name Gattaca is a reference to..." but I'd find such an inclusion rather clumsy. It would be best to find a source that explicitly states the name is an intentional reference. DonIago (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Good evening Doniago.
My contributions for the category is based on the French Wikipedia which is the reference. So the categorization of the French article was that and I copied. You are right because with just one Bing search I founded this : http://www.vincentperez.com/biography.html. He said that he went to Conservatoire de Paris. But this University has 2 parts : music and drama. For the drama one, it is Conservatoire national supérieur d'art dramatique. So I added the category. I will put it back and cancel the category:Conservatoire de Paris which is too large. I hope everything's allright
Nezdek (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Nezdek, thanks for getting in touch.
- Wikis (including other language versions of Wikipedia) are not considered reliable sources and should not be used for referencing. Even if they were, when adding a category the category needs to be verifiable within the specific article it's being applied to. The best way to do this is by adding some text that establishes the article subject belongs to the article category with an appropriate citation.
- I looked at the website you linked, and it doesn't appear to be an official page, which would be an issue in terms of using it as a reference I'm afraid.
- In any case, with the information you've provided it doesn't appear to me that we have a reliable source establishing that Perez went to the school you're claiming he did, and even if he did the article text needs to be updated accordingly. I'm reverting your change again, but please feel free to reinsert it as long as you update the text as well and include a reliable source. Maybe the French wikipedia article has a more appropriate reference?
- If you disagree with my interpretation you're welcome to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Good evening Doniago.
The category is just more precise. So that's not a problem. It takes so much time to put all the references needed from one wiki to another. When there are 100 articles to update, it's quite problematic. I don't have here the reference in the French wiki but you know : at the Conservatoire de Paris you can either learn music, or drama. Two different universities. So there is no doubt. And to finish, in the article CNSAD it is written that he is a notable alumni (that's not me who wrote it).
Good night
Nezdek (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)- Nezdek, we need to use the category that the underlying source actually uses. We can't use an argument like "we know the conservatory is divided into two schools"; that would be original research. But anyway...yeah, just update the article with a source that says what school he went to, then add the appropriate category. The CNSAD article doesn't even source Perez being an alumnus, which is also a problem. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah. Bye
Nezdek (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)- Um. Sorry if I upset you, but the Wikipedia guidlines for categories are pretty clear, and as I noted, you've got options if you disagree with my take on things. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah. Bye
- Nezdek, we need to use the category that the underlying source actually uses. We can't use an argument like "we know the conservatory is divided into two schools"; that would be original research. But anyway...yeah, just update the article with a source that says what school he went to, then add the appropriate category. The CNSAD article doesn't even source Perez being an alumnus, which is also a problem. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Good evening Doniago.
Independence Day (1996 film)
I edited this entry adding that the producers of the movie acquired and used the domain http://www.id4.com to promote the movie, however I did not provide proof; I just remembered it. I found a source from the Wayback machine [1] that provides evidence for what I wrote. http://www.id4.com was used the website to promote the movie. If you look at the code that serves up this page you'll see the full URL to the Wayback machine, not just the URL of the website in question. Channeljockey (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, but IIRC you also claimed that this was one of the first instances of a promotional website for a movie; that part would need a source as well. DonIago (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Doniago - re my edit of The Shining
Hi Doniago - it is nice to see you are such a film lover (as I am!)... I had added a small bit to the Wiki page for The Shining, in the section where it discusses that film's appearances in our popular culture - I had just seen the Kubrick exhibit at LACMA in Los Angeles and thought it would be appropriate to update the Wiki page with the info I researched and verified... it was for the way The Shining film was used as the impetus for the multi-platinum musical artist Slipknot's first Official Video for their song "Spit It Out" - and the music video is a rather nice and recognized homage to the original film. This info seems as relevant as the other pop culture uses especially as the video was so widely viewed and well-received, and it may be that I somehow didn't list something correctly. May I kindly ask that you let me know what I've done wrong so that I may correct it and add this info to the page properly. Thanks always, Stephen Garvey Here is what I had written - thank you again.
RIAA Certified multi-platinum and Grammy nominated heavy metal artist Slipknot pay homage to the film in their first music video for their song Spit It Out, directed by Thomas Mignone. The video consists of rapid cuts between a live performance of the song filmed at Ozzfest and conceptual imagery of the bandmembers each portraying various scenes of the film, with Joey Jordison as Danny Torrance; Shawn Crahan and Chris Fehn as the Grady twins; Corey Taylor as Jack Torrance; Mick Thomson as Lloyd the Bartender; Craig Jones as Dick Hallorann; James Root as Wendy Torrance; Paul Gray as Harry Derwent; and Sid Wilson as the corpse in the bathtub. The Shining sequences for the video were shot at the Villa Carlotta, in Hollywood, California, and were Art Directed by Chris Jordan and Robert Piser. The video was banned from MTV, for overtly graphic and violent depictions, including Corey Taylor's smashing through a door with an axe and the scene wherein James Root viciously assaults Corey Taylor with a baseball bat. Mignone and the band eventually re-edited a less violent version, which was subsequently aired on MTV. [2]
- Hi there...it took me a while to track down what edit you were referring to. In the future I'd recommend including a diff to make it a bit easier on everyone. :) I definitely didn't realize at first that we were talking about something from last year.
- It's good that you provided a source...however, the source doesn't back up your paragraph, at least that I saw. It claims that the video was inspired by The Shining, but ideally we'd have a source that says that was the band's intention, rather than essentially engaging in their own original research. That said, since the source you provided doesn't list whose playing what role in the video, your explanation of that is itself original research; however "obvious" it might be who's playing what role from the film, we shouldn't say it if the source doesn't say it. Your paragraph also says other things about the video, like the bit about the live performance and the video being banned, that the source does not say. A trimmed or better-sourced version of your information could work better, but as it is I don't think it's ready for inclusion.
- I hope this is all sensible, and I appreciate your approaching me in such a polite manner about this. If you have strong concerns about what I'm saying here and don't feel we can resolve them ourselves, you're welcome to bring this up at the article's Talk page, where other editors could offer their opinions as well. Otherwise, I'm happy to address any further concerns you might have; thanks for coming to me! DonIago (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
GoT articles
Dear Don,
I'm starting to find it unpleasant to work on GoT articles, with both Jack and Flyer there. I personally don't like Jack that much for his insistence on reverting in ppl's face, and Flyer's insistent to drag things into a lengthy discussion. Since you've worked with me a lot of times without problems, I'm telling you that I'll just drop by just occasionally from now. It's not fun anymore. But do beep me when you need something. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- (laughs) I hate to say it but you're preaching to the choir here. I know almost nothing about GoT, and I only got pulled into this because when there was a DRN on Oathkeeper I noticed it because I'm a DRN volunteer, and since the disputants seemed to be missing a few precedents for the situation I dug those up and linked. It was sort of weird because, since I am a volunteer there, I was trying to avoid espousing an opinion even though I definitely had one on the subject.
- Anyway, as you can see from the OK Talk page the DRN filing went exactly nowhere, and I've gotten drawn into the discussion a bit more, but it seems like folks are circling round and round without any progress being made, as I recently expressed there. It's unfortunate that we've gotten editors involved who tend to have strong opinions...I think it's ultimately going to settle out as "no consensus for inclusion".
- I don't really want to express opinions on specific editors other than to say that I think some of them are being a bit more...rigorous...about this situation than is necessarily merited.
- Anyway, maybe everyone will learn something in the process, and I hope we're nearing the endgame on this whole ball of wax. Thanks for your offer, and I'll let you know if anything comes up. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Anthonydraco, I've barely done any editing on the Game of Thrones articles. Indeed, most of my editing regarding these articles so far has been limited to the rape debate (meaning the Game of Thrones (season 4) article and the Breaker of Chains article) and my addition to the Critical reception section of the Oathkeeper article (meaning the Eric Goldman and Roth Cornet material). And none of those cases show me as "insistent to drag things into a lengthy discussion." So I am beyond confused as to why you seem to be indicating that I am heavily involved with the Game of Thrones articles and making the environment regarding them unpleasant or why you took such offense to the discussion I started about the plot summaries; it's a discussion that obviously needed to be had. I didn't speak badly of you or even criticize you; in fact, I stated, "Anthonydraco has stepped up to trim the plot section of those other articles as well." But if you can't handle criticism, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be really awesome if you guys would not get into a discussion of whatever problems you might have with each others' conduct on my Talk page. If you just feel the urge to vent to me directly, options other than publicly-viewable Wikipedia pages are available. Thank you for your consideration! DonIago (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- ^ https://web.archive.org/web/19961025114252/http://www.id4.com/
- ^ Dirty Horror Spotlight: Slipknot [3]