User talk:Doniago/Archive 113
 | 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 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 |
Total Recall (1990 movie)
As you requested I kept the word count low for my edit of the movie's synopsis since you requested it absolutely needs to be under 700 words total : the excerpt I modified was kept at 37 words , same as original, as I told you on my own talk page. Wiki member Darkwarriorblake now proceeded to revert, again, the edit, even though it is concise, and as short as before (37 words exactly). This attitude is being tiresome and non constructive. He claims condescendingly the edit is a "laborous effort" and "based on an imdb trivia article". Thing is I thought of this years ago when imdb didn't even exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:208:4130:103D:1801:AA4B:2686 (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you're talking about the stuff with the red pill, then regardless of word count I think it's more detail than most readers of the article are going to care about. That said, you're welcome to raise the question at the article's Talk page so that editors interested in the article can weigh in and form a consensus. If it has significance outside the plot summary, then it would probably be better to discuss it outside the plot summary as well, with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The pill could be red, yellow, golden or even transparent, I don't care, I'm not into the whole red/blue pill thing the least, I find it ridiculous if you want my own opinion, just saying this to be clear. Now to get into the context, in the movie Total Recall(1990) Edgemar doesn't just "explain things" as implied by the amateurish excerpt in the wiki synopsis. Edgemar claims to be a doctor sent by Rekall, sure he proceeds to explain the basics in order to bring Quaid back to reason (he's supposedly still at Rekall on Earth, asleep in the device), but goes further : he hands him a pill ("inside your dream you'll fall asleep") that would make him awaken at Rekall's facility peacefully and would thus end the martian dream adventure. For all the spectator knows, it could very well be a poison, alternatively some sleeping pill, anything just to neutralize Quaid while the present moment is very true (this is what Quaid thinks due to the events following immediately after)...or Edgemar is right and the whole intervention by the latter with his magic pill is just a safety protocol from Rekall, activated in laste resort to avoid lobotomy. Notice it is just when Edgemar proposes said pill that Quaid holds him at gunpoint : in the sequence, Dr. Edgemar claims that Quaid eventually shooting him would only end by having the latter trapped in a permanent psychosis & being lobotomized in the real world, as no one would be able to lead him safely out of the dream (only the doctor can supposedly). Then, why is the pill necessary and why does Edgemar insist so much for Quaid to take it? If the pill isn't important then why is there a whole sequence where Quaid pretends to calm down and obey, placing the pill in his mouth? HE fakes to swallow, and this irritates strongly Edgemar who suddenly adopts a harsh tone ordering him again to swallow it, Lori plays "good cop" by asking Quaid very gently to comply, and it is after a long silence, observing Edgemar sweating profusely, that Quaid decides to shoot him in the head. Quaid clearly thinks Lori and the doctor are conspiring against him. He spits the pill on Edgemar's body afterwards. It is not known in the movie if everything is a dream or not (it differs from the original short story), so in the eventuality that it was all real, then the pill could have had ended the adventure but in a more catastrophic manner. By the way "Betty Logan" who had no user page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Betty_Logan ) when vandalizing my edit then suddenly said member has a member page now... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Betty_Logan . Unfortunately you did not approve of my edit in the end despite your promise on my talk page to leave it alone as long as the rewording was concise with a low word count... It's becoming a chore to participate on wikipedia these days. You simply decided it "it's more detail than most readers of the article are going to care about". For your personal information, you should look again at the sequence, it's only 3mn long, and I dare say you do not "recall" it correctly...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBEVuzWHaOc you can have it taken down by youtube, I'm not the source, I saw the film when it was released unlike some would be know it alls who discovered it recently. 2A01:E0A:208:4130:103D:1801:AA4B:2686 (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- TL;DR. At least use paragraph breaks please. DonIago (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- How convenient, the talk page for my IP just disappeared https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A01:E0A:208:4130:103D:1801:AA4B:2686&action=edit&redlink=1 , of course now there is no proof you promised to keep the edit if it complied with your requests (which seemed reasonable : low word count, being concise). 2A01:E0A:208:4130:103D:1801:AA4B:2686 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have the sole authority to decide what text stays in articles, so it seems highly unlikely to me that I would have ever made such a promise. DonIago (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- How come the talk page of my present IP disappeared? 2A01:E0A:208:4130:103D:1801:AA4B:2686 (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was misled, I thought you were a moderator/administrator of wikipedia. You user page states you're neither. What a waste of time. 2A01:E0A:208:4130:103D:1801:AA4B:2686 (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm quite certain I never claimed to be either one. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have the sole authority to decide what text stays in articles, so it seems highly unlikely to me that I would have ever made such a promise. DonIago (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- How convenient, the talk page for my IP just disappeared https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A01:E0A:208:4130:103D:1801:AA4B:2686&action=edit&redlink=1 , of course now there is no proof you promised to keep the edit if it complied with your requests (which seemed reasonable : low word count, being concise). 2A01:E0A:208:4130:103D:1801:AA4B:2686 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- TL;DR. At least use paragraph breaks please. DonIago (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The pill could be red, yellow, golden or even transparent, I don't care, I'm not into the whole red/blue pill thing the least, I find it ridiculous if you want my own opinion, just saying this to be clear. Now to get into the context, in the movie Total Recall(1990) Edgemar doesn't just "explain things" as implied by the amateurish excerpt in the wiki synopsis. Edgemar claims to be a doctor sent by Rekall, sure he proceeds to explain the basics in order to bring Quaid back to reason (he's supposedly still at Rekall on Earth, asleep in the device), but goes further : he hands him a pill ("inside your dream you'll fall asleep") that would make him awaken at Rekall's facility peacefully and would thus end the martian dream adventure. For all the spectator knows, it could very well be a poison, alternatively some sleeping pill, anything just to neutralize Quaid while the present moment is very true (this is what Quaid thinks due to the events following immediately after)...or Edgemar is right and the whole intervention by the latter with his magic pill is just a safety protocol from Rekall, activated in laste resort to avoid lobotomy. Notice it is just when Edgemar proposes said pill that Quaid holds him at gunpoint : in the sequence, Dr. Edgemar claims that Quaid eventually shooting him would only end by having the latter trapped in a permanent psychosis & being lobotomized in the real world, as no one would be able to lead him safely out of the dream (only the doctor can supposedly). Then, why is the pill necessary and why does Edgemar insist so much for Quaid to take it? If the pill isn't important then why is there a whole sequence where Quaid pretends to calm down and obey, placing the pill in his mouth? HE fakes to swallow, and this irritates strongly Edgemar who suddenly adopts a harsh tone ordering him again to swallow it, Lori plays "good cop" by asking Quaid very gently to comply, and it is after a long silence, observing Edgemar sweating profusely, that Quaid decides to shoot him in the head. Quaid clearly thinks Lori and the doctor are conspiring against him. He spits the pill on Edgemar's body afterwards. It is not known in the movie if everything is a dream or not (it differs from the original short story), so in the eventuality that it was all real, then the pill could have had ended the adventure but in a more catastrophic manner. By the way "Betty Logan" who had no user page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Betty_Logan ) when vandalizing my edit then suddenly said member has a member page now... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Betty_Logan . Unfortunately you did not approve of my edit in the end despite your promise on my talk page to leave it alone as long as the rewording was concise with a low word count... It's becoming a chore to participate on wikipedia these days. You simply decided it "it's more detail than most readers of the article are going to care about". For your personal information, you should look again at the sequence, it's only 3mn long, and I dare say you do not "recall" it correctly...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBEVuzWHaOc you can have it taken down by youtube, I'm not the source, I saw the film when it was released unlike some would be know it alls who discovered it recently. 2A01:E0A:208:4130:103D:1801:AA4B:2686 (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2024 (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) 12:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
RE: Blade Runner edit (September 2024)
Hey there! Apologies, I wasn't trying to infract Wikipedia's POV neutrality. The film Blade Runner is indeed a loose adaptation of the original novel by Philip K. Dick; while a lot of characters and multiple story beats are alike, the movie changes significant parts of the book and uses it as a basis rather than being an accurate adaptation to the big screen. I won't strongly defend my edit if you think it's still a violation considering your edit count is significantly higher than mine, but I wanted to clarify I had good reasoning and intentions behind the change; the film and the novel differ substantially in several areas, and it's not conjecture.
Cheers! DecryptedPixel (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi DP, thanks for reaching out! I never for a moment doubted that you meant well, so no worries there. :)
- My concern is that the word "loose" is a matter of viewer interpretation. You might feel it's a loose adaptation, but another viewer might feel it's a pretty close adaptation. There isn't necessarily any objective measure of when an adaptation becomes a loose adaptation.
- I hope that makes sense! If you do feel it would be better to specify that it's a loose interpretation, you're welcome to raise the question at the article's Talk page so that a consensus can be formed. Alternately, if you can find multiple sources that refer to it as such, I think you could include the term with those sources cited, to make it clear that it's not just your opinion but the opinion of respected film critics.
- I hope this helps a bit. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I get that, I wasn't trying to be subjective with the "loose adaptation" phrase; even other pages on Wikipedia refer to it as such (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? § Film) or that several things from the novel are omitted (Cyberpunk § Film and television). But I don't fault you for being wary after all. As for finding sources, I'm not sure if they count as respectable critics, but nevertheless for posterity's sake here's a quick few I found: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
- I'm not sure about the process for forming consensuses on talk pages, but I'll look into it if that's the next viable step. Cheers! DecryptedPixel (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think if you reinserted "loosely" and added those refs (that presumably use the word; I didn't go looking) but avoided any that appear to be blogs that you'd probably be okay; I don't see that there's any need to bring it up on the Talk page at that point unless someone else reverts you. Good research! DonIago (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmmm you don't have to read them all but I could definitely use a second pair of eyes on which of the sources classify as "blogs". I think a couple of the links contain the exact word "loose" but the Den of Geeks article (which I assume is preferable for citation) doesn't; instead it describes many of the intentional changes between the two media, and I think that's a worthwhile tradeoff. DecryptedPixel (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would not use the ones from WordPress or any with "blog" in the URL. I think that leaves you with at least two, which should be fine. As I said, I can't guarantee that anyone won't challenge the addition subsequently, but we can cross that bridge if/when we come to it. DonIago (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmmm you don't have to read them all but I could definitely use a second pair of eyes on which of the sources classify as "blogs". I think a couple of the links contain the exact word "loose" but the Den of Geeks article (which I assume is preferable for citation) doesn't; instead it describes many of the intentional changes between the two media, and I think that's a worthwhile tradeoff. DecryptedPixel (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think if you reinserted "loosely" and added those refs (that presumably use the word; I didn't go looking) but avoided any that appear to be blogs that you'd probably be okay; I don't see that there's any need to bring it up on the Talk page at that point unless someone else reverts you. Good research! DonIago (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2024 (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) 12:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Help desk
Please don’t feed the profoundly abusive troll. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry; didn't realize they were one. DonIago (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Symphonic Music of Yes 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 15:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Quiet Earth plot section
Hi Doniago, thank you for your message. I usually do my best to comply with wikipedia editing guidelines, though on this occasion, I may have gotten a little carried away. I acknowledge that the plot section could be shorter, and could do without the more lengthy quotations. However, I do feel that I added some details that are relevant and meaningful, insofar as they help readers to make sense of the overall plot. I also re-ordered some of the plot information so that it was in chronological order. With this in mind, I hope it would be acceptable if I restored some of my previous edits, being those which comply with WP:PLOTSUM and associated guidelines. Of course, I will wait for your response before proceeding. Yours, StellaAquila (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming the text you add/change doesn't introduce any problems that I can't really foresee without having a chance to review it, I have no issues with you adding or changing the text for the plot summary as long as it doesn't exceeed the word-count guidelines. Thanks for reaching out to me with your concerns! DonIago (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)