User talk:Doniago/Archive 28
 | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
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.
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)
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)
Please comment on Talk:Romeo and Juliet
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romeo and Juliet. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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) 23:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Draft talk:Half-Life 3
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Draft talk:Half-Life 3. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- ^ https://web.archive.org/web/19961025114252/http://www.id4.com/
- ^ Dirty Horror Spotlight: Slipknot [1]