User talk:Doniago/Archive 106
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Doniago. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 100 | ← | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | → | Archive 110 |
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) 00:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
SD40
What are you doing here? You realise that 80% of articles means that well over a million articles need more than 40 characters to provide sufficient context, right? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you feel that this article merits an exception to WP:SD40, you're welcome to start a discussion at the article's Talk page to see how other editors feel. DonIago (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you expect over a million people to start talk page discussions after being mechanically reverted then I don't know what to tell you. I'll leave my comment, fix it again when the expected zero opposition occurs, and not expect this to happen again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Barbenheimer on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion about me
Well it seems the edits I've made that have been reverted are very minor, not substantial or even major. So yes I apologise, but to go as far as wanting to block me is an overreaction in my opinion and not necessary. I never change important information without reliable sources. I mostly add dates and very little information, so I won't even do that anymore and there's no need to block me, thank you. Gorrrillla5 03:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I would recommend you say this at the ANI filing, not here. Minor edits or not, making edits that results in you being repeatedly asked to change your editing behavior and refusing to engage with those concerns while continuing to engage in the problematic behavior isn't, IMO, acceptable conduct, and I find it telling that you're only communicating with me now after I've escalated this to ANI. DonIago (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well because I've been doing these type of edits to article descriptions for a very long while now and never had anyone complain before, so of course with your concerns I didn't really understand the problem as I've even been thanked for a couple of my article descriptions recently. I'll comment on the ANI filing and state the exact same thing I've done now, I will add that I won't make anymore edits deemed disruptive by you from now on. Gorrrillla5 04:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've left you multiple and escalating notes since mid-June, well over a month ago now. If you didn't understand the problem, you could have asked for more information, but you instead chose to ignore my notes and continue with your (arguably) disruptive editing. If other editors feel that your message(s) at the ANI filing are sufficient then I'm content to call this a misunderstanding and move on, but I do want to hear from other editors, as it concerns me that I needed to escalate this to the level of an ANI filing before you chose to engage at all. Personally, I think it might help if you also agreed to be more responsive to notices left at your Talk page. DonIago (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well because I've been doing these type of edits to article descriptions for a very long while now and never had anyone complain before, so of course with your concerns I didn't really understand the problem as I've even been thanked for a couple of my article descriptions recently. I'll comment on the ANI filing and state the exact same thing I've done now, I will add that I won't make anymore edits deemed disruptive by you from now on. Gorrrillla5 04:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Psycho Genre
Hello, I hope you are well.
I noticed you have reverted the genre lead of Psycho from horror back to thriller. If you visit the film's talk page, the consensus was reached that horror was more relevant and appropriate for this film. Thriller is a very broad genre, and Here are several articles supporting its place as one of the most influential horror films:
https://ew.com/article/2009/08/04/psycho-the-horror-movie-that-changed-the-genre/ https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/22/psycho-horror-hitchcock https://www.popmatters.com/alfred-hitchcock-psycho-mother-horrors https://decider.com/2019/10/19/psycho-perfect-horror-movie/ https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/how-alfred-hitchcock-psycho-changed-horror-forever/
IMDb has it listed as a Horror, Mystery, Thriller, and Rotten Tomatoes, in its genre listing as well as its critics consensus, refers to it as a horror film. Even the 'Horror film' Wikipedia page mentions Psycho as one of the most significant horror films that changed cinema in the 1960s here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_film
So I hope this can be the same for the film's Wikipedia page to keep it in conformity with all the other sources. Thank you. HA5797 (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ack. I'm sorry, you're totally right about that. Heck, I supported "Horror" in the Talk page discussion. I got my thriller-horror wires crossed there. Mea culpa! DonIago (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- No worries! HA5797 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2023 (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) 23:37, 11 August 2023 (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) 00:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Reversion of edits.
The point you made about discussing the reversion of edits to Star Trek: First Contact on the article's talk page may be a valid one. However, this would not be applicable to the reference which you deleted (for the reason which I stated clearly in the edit history). I did not revert the edit in which the quote was removed as in my opinion there was just cause to do so. However it was necessary to reinstate the reference as this was cited elsewhere and was therefore listed as missing in the References section.
(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC))
Also, please also note that whilst I have made some amendments to the deleted sentence, I was not responsible for adding it to begin with, and was merely following the guidelines in WP:DOREVERT: "Whenever you believe that the author of an edit was simply misinformed, made a mistake, or did not think an edit through, go ahead and revert" (my emphasis). Moreover, WP:BRD states that an editor should "[d]iscuss [their] bold edit with the person who reverted [them]. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, [they] must not restore [their] bold edit." (my emphasis). In this case, since it was the other editor who made the initial bold edit, if you were following the spirit of the guidelines as I interpret them, it could be argued that you should not have reverted my edit because this was itself an reversion!! A better approach would have been to leave the article as it was and initiate a discussion on the talk page yourself.
(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC))
- Thank you for expressing your concerns to me. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not at all, although I am none the wiser as to whether you agree with any of the points I made or not. Perhaps what I did not express very clearly was that in the reasons you gave for reverting my edit (which I thank you for taking the trouble to include in your edit summary) you were confounding two issues. What the other editor did was not only to delete any changes I had made to the sentence concerned but to delete it in its entirety, and it was this which I fundamentally disagreed with. Had the other editor merely reverted my own edits, then your rationale would have been consistent with the guidelines.
- (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC))
- Honestly? I've had trouble following what you're trying to say here, and I find your use of boldface a bit overbearing (italics would be a bit less so, though boldface is at least preferable to all caps). As this is something I have limited interest in getting drawn into though, I'm content to issue a 'Mea culpa' and move on. If other editors have an issue with your edits, that will become clear.
- If it's a concern to you that you did not communicate clearly here (at least from my perspective), then I'd note that diffs would have been very helpful in terms of illustrating the flow of what occurred. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Mea culpa accepted with gratitude. I did look for a way of including the relevant diff information previously, but have only just discovered the appropriate template (apologies for this). The point is that essentially it was this edit being deleted here, as according to their edit summary, the other editor had not removed the sentence because of any changes I had made (which in fact shortened it slightly and did not substantively alter the content). Since the issue would seem fairly important to the application of WP:BRD, I am quite happy to discuss it further should you wish. (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)).
- P.S. The original material was added from an anonymous IP address owned by a US phone company.(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)).
Re: Edward Scissorhands citation
Hello, I wanted to address your reversion of my edits and your message on my talk page about this topic. When I made my addition, I searched far and wide for a better source, unfortunately it's a rather peculiar thing to find a source for, but is easily verifiable. I surmise that the Wikipedia article on the episode would be enough evidence, and it takes less than five minutes of viewing the episode for the references to appear.
It's just that for whatever reason the IMDB page doesn't include this as trivia or as a reference itself, making it hard to source elsewhere. There are simply no sources available, but it's easily verifiable information regardless of sources, which makes this a difficult matter. I do not believe the lack of sources is reason to ban the inclusion of the episode on said article, as it's not a dubious claim in the slightest, it's fact. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing, but I'd like to hear from a third party on this matter. Retta283 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- As I noted at your Talk page, please review WP:IPCV. The issue isn't whether the reference occurred, but whether the reference is especially significant, which we establish by providing a secondary source. Otherwise, the article on Citizen Kane for instance, would be littered with hundreds if not thousands of instances of the times that film has been referenced in other media. DonIago (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Maske: Thaery on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 6 September 2023 (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) 00:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Recent post on my talk page
Hi Doniago,
You posted on my talk page stating that I did not cite a source in an edit I made. The edit I made was to the subheader of the article that appears on the mobile app (article description is how the app describes it when you go to edit it).
As far as I know, there is no way to cite a source in the article description. Please let me know if I am incorrect. JMcElhaney10 (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there; when I leave comments on another editor's Talk page I add that page to my watchlist, so there's no need to contact me here as well. I've replied at your Talk page. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- From your comment on my talk page: "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!" JMcElhaney10 (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. That's just a part of the standard template I used. DonIago (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- From your comment on my talk page: "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!" JMcElhaney10 (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)