User talk:Doniago/Archive 99
 | 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 95 | ← | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | → | Archive 105 |
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) 23:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
Hello,
Is there are reason why this edit was reverted outside of poorly written. I can understand not accepting the "Captain Barbossa"/"Hector Barbossa" trivia, but the rest is fair to add. Especially when the source is in the film itself. The order of cast members in particular should be accurate as that's how it was in the first two minutes of the end credits, to save confusion I'm not referring the cast list but the opening of the end credits. As far as the sourcing, I find it odd given the same sources are used in another article here on Wikipedia. Surely, some of the information I added could have been of good use? 69.245.96.48 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the source is the film itself, then there's no reason to add this information in any case. Pertinent details can appear in the Plot section, and the Cast section should be focusing on real-world information anyway; it's not a place to drop fancruft. I won't revert you again at this time, but don't be surprised if another editor does. DonIago (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Understandable. However, if a revert does happen, I'll still readd the information that isn't plot-related. Whereas the roles played by certain characters (i.e. saying a character talks about this before doing that) that I can see being taken out. 69.245.96.48 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 22:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Cast section format in Jurassic World Dominion
Doniago, I need you to take a look at the cast section format of Jurassic World Dominion and look at the cast section in diff here. Then go to the article's talk page here to express your opinion about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Asking me specifically to weigh in could be construed as canvassing, and I'm consequently uncomfortable doing so. DonIago (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. Nevermind. Besides, I reverted to status quo. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Second 3RO
Hello @Doniago: I took upon previous 3RO provider [1] to take out second 3RO. But you reverted [2] the second request, can you undo this, or do you have objection to this? Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- A 3O request is inappropriate once more than two editors are involved in the discussion. It is literally for requesting a third opinion. If you feel additional input is needed at that point, you should pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Reverted Star Trek edit
My edit pointed at another page (Star Trek (1971 video game) full of references. Cherry-picking a reference to also add to the page linking to it is redundant. Susan Davis (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- If there's another page already full of references, then it should be easy enough to copy one of them. See WP:CIRCULAR. DonIago (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Request for third opinion reverted
Hello, I posted a 3O request on 14 Jun for a dispute at Talk:27 Club but it was reverted. I understand the discussion may have appeared to involve more than 2 editors because it's located under a topic heading that other editors had previously contributed to. However, the dispute is about a related but separate topic, involving only me and one other editor. More context... The original topic discussion — a list criteria proposal I'd made — is complete, after I conceded there wasn't clear editor support for it. In conceding, I described the list edits I would make to comply with the status quo list criteria. Another editor reverted those edits and he and I have been disputing his rationale for 2 weeks, with no progress.
After my 3O request was reverted, I split off the separate dispute discussion to its own topic heading to make it clearer, but the other editor immediately reverted that — which doesn't appear to me to be in good faith. I'd like to ask you the favor of taking a second look at considering this dispute for 3O. I'm happy to move it to another venue if you still recommend that. Thanks! Goffman82 12:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at this thoroughly, in part because I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, but I think it might have been better or would be better for you to create a sub-heading for the issues under dispute rather than creating a new full section for them (and clearly recap the points of contention that only involve two editors)...that would make it clearer as to what's specifically under dispute for which only two editors are involved, though it might behoove you to ask the editor with whom you're in dispute, in that thread, whether they agree that a third opinion is needed, assuming you can't reach a consensus between the two of you. In any case, 3O has a pretty bright-line rule that editors only get involved in disputes where only two editors are involved, so when it appears that there's more than two editors who've participated in the thread, that will usually get the request delisted.
- Otherwise, or if you can't even reach an agreement that there's two editors involved in the current dispute and that a third opinion is needed, I'd encourage you to review WP:DR, which provides other options for dispute resolution.
- Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips. Ironically a 3rd editor finally weighed in on the dispute after I posted to your talk page. (Not an uninvolved editor, however.) I'll take your advice and proceed to another DR venue. Is your sub-heading suggestion to split off the existing dispute content under its own sub-heading or to start a new sub-heading, with a re-cap, as the place for the dispute to continue? Goffman82 18:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I should really have said sub-section rather than sub-heading to avoid confusion. Perhaps something named "Current dispute status - additional opinions needed" with a paragraph of, "It's my understanding that at this point our dispute is over X versus Y. I feel X is appropriate for reasons 1, 2 and 3, while Editor Q appears to feel that Y is more appropriate for these reasons..." Something where if you do request a third opinion, someone can wade right in from that section break without necessarily needing to read up on the preceding text. Perhaps it's lazy of me, but I know that when I consider weighing in with a third opinion, I don't want to have to read weeks or months worth of prior text just to get a basic understanding of the dispute. I will read it, to get the deeper context and such, but I'm more inclined to chime in if there's a synopsis readily available. DonIago (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips. Ironically a 3rd editor finally weighed in on the dispute after I posted to your talk page. (Not an uninvolved editor, however.) I'll take your advice and proceed to another DR venue. Is your sub-heading suggestion to split off the existing dispute content under its own sub-heading or to start a new sub-heading, with a re-cap, as the place for the dispute to continue? Goffman82 18:24, 21 June 2022 (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) 23:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
nice one on the revert
hulu is a reliable source when the information in question is said to originally come from hulu, especially when the provided reference points to the updated information.
im glad you were a good enough person to realize your error and take it upon yourself to make the necessary correction.
thank you kind sir. Snarevox (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Reversion to The Living Daylights edit
- Hello. Thank you for explaining your reversion to my edits of The Living Daylights. I disagree with your assessment that my edit added excessive detail to the plot summary for the following reasons, but I am new to Wikipedia editing and I would love to hear your thoughts about this.
- The reverted version is inaccurate, as I describe in the note accompanying my original edit. Bond does not return to Whitaker's estate "to kill Whitaker."
- The plot summary is well written, and I believe my edits to the plot summary are the minimum (or very nearly the minimum) amount of changes necessary to accurately convey the essential plot points that take place at Whitaker's estate toward the end of the movie: Bond returns to confront Koskov, Bond kills Whitaker, Pushkin arrests Koskov. If any part of that portion of the summary provides unnecessary detail, it is the point that Koskov is to be returned to Moscow "in the diplomatic bag," which was in the original version of the plot summary that you deem acceptable.
- My edit adds 14 words to a 693-word plot summary. I don't believe that this is an excessive addition by any standard, especially given that it corrects the misleading description of the plot in the original version of the summary. 76.138.175.183 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:FILMPLOT recommends that plot summaries should not exceed 700 words. Given that you yourself claim that you only went slightly over that limit, can you not find a way to keep the summary from exceeding that? DonIago (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is that the specific reason that the edit was reverted? If so, then yes it should be easy enough to make the changes and stay within a 700 word limit. 76.138.175.183 (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Other editors might have other issues with it, but my interest in your edits wouldn't have been piqued if the word-count had stayed at or under 700 words. DonIago (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is that the specific reason that the edit was reverted? If so, then yes it should be easy enough to make the changes and stay within a 700 word limit. 76.138.175.183 (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Veep 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 12:31, 8 July 2022 (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) 23:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey.
Why did you revert my edits? The episodes are real. How are they "unsourced" to you? 2600:8801:3:D800:ECFA:DE67:DA13:C457 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please review WP:IPCV; you must include a source that draws a connection between the episodes and the film. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, the Aqua Teen episode does parody the movie. The fact that it contains parodies, yet you don't allow people like myself to contribute is absolutely hypocritical. I've been editing since 2006, and I'm tired. Also, please do not revert the fixed grammar errors.--2600:8801:3:D800:ECFA:DE67:DA13:C457 (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody's preventing you from contributing. I linked you to the policy in question that requires that you provide a source. If you have an issue with my reverting you without you providing a source, take it to the article's Talk page or pursue dispute resolution. Additionally, in your more recent edits you repeated a source that doesn't actually reference Aqua Teen, which at best is erroneous and at worst disingenuous. DonIago (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, the Aqua Teen episode does parody the movie. The fact that it contains parodies, yet you don't allow people like myself to contribute is absolutely hypocritical. I've been editing since 2006, and I'm tired. Also, please do not revert the fixed grammar errors.--2600:8801:3:D800:ECFA:DE67:DA13:C457 (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2022 (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) 23:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Fixing an incorrect birthdate Of Tony Sirico
If you go to Facebook and search on Robert Sirico’s account go to July 8th post. It’s about the funeral about his brother Tony Sirico he posted that July 29th is incorrect birthdate. Tony Sirico the actor is born on July 24th not July 29th! All I did was correct the misinformation of the incorrect birthdate that someone on here made. LIWProWrestling (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- When you updated his article you didn't provide a source, so you must have expected that your edit might be reverted. The birthdate that currently appears on his article is also sourced, so the proper course of action would be to initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page, not simply assume that the source you found is right and the existing source is wrong. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 09:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)