User talk:Doniago/Archive 37
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
I know where you're coming from mate, but that whole article is just a whole bunch of speculation/. If it's not improved soon it should be removed. Jodosma (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the article's in pretty sad shape, but adding speculative material probably isn't the best way to improve it either. :) Saw you added it to the Talk page; I'm fine with that. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing I said was speculation. It is a fact that Eric Partridge wrote those very words, and it is a fact that we don't know whether he made the connection. ):) Jodosma (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- (laughs) Well-played, but until we know whether he intended for the connection to be made I don't think it's appropriate for the article. DonIago (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Touche, and ciao. Jodosma (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- (laughs) Well-played, but until we know whether he intended for the connection to be made I don't think it's appropriate for the article. DonIago (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing I said was speculation. It is a fact that Eric Partridge wrote those very words, and it is a fact that we don't know whether he made the connection. ):) Jodosma (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2015 (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Flyer22 (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Question about the no-go listing
I noticed in edit view that you added some text before the article name {{la|No-go area}}. Is that "la"? I don't know how I missed that in the instructions. Atsme☯Consult 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wish I could say. I used WP:Twinkle to set up the AFD and I admit I'm not fully-versed on what it does. There's always Template:la though? DonIago (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! Atsme☯Consult 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Glad I could help! DonIago (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! Atsme☯Consult 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Third Opinion Service Award
|
The Third Opinion Award | |
| Congratulations Doniago, for your diligent efforts (or more technically, reaching 50 edits to the main page) to the Third Opinion project...I award you this! Keep up your loyal service. Sincerely, — Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC) |
- Why thank you! :) DonIago (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Let me add my congratulations as well. Good work, Don! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks TM! I haven't forgotten about the Mediation Committee either, but the reality is that I mostly WP from work and I've literally been doing the work of two people since late October. Some days I'm lucky just to get through my Watchlist, and while I could handle offering a brief opinion here and there, I don't really want to get involved in any prolonged discussions for the time-being...though I'm hoping that will be resolved in some manner by March. Thanks again for your invitation though! DonIago (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Let me add my congratulations as well. Good work, Don! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Version 2.0
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Version 2.0. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Question about production currentness
(Please forgive me and educate me re any format/procedure aberrations) I'm writing to comment about a change of mine that you reverted on the page for the Incredible Hulk. I'd changed "The Incredible Hulk is a tv series..." to "The Incredible Hulk was a tv series...", and commented that it's been decades since the show was produced, and you reverted to "is" with the comment that it's still available. My proposition is that when talking about television series, the notion of whether the series is currently produced or not should be represented in (respectively) present or past tense when talking about the show, because many people care about the difference, and because saying "was" is generally *not* going to convey that a show is no longer available (as opposed to conveying that the show is no longer in production). 74.196.117.211 (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus as discussed at WP:TENSE is that works of fiction should generally be described in the present tense because, regardless of whether they are still being produced, they exist, in the sense that you could watch them online or what-not. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
To that line of thought, I would contribute (a) that being able to still view or hear a given piece of media from the past applies to such a vast majority of media that it really is a waste of the is/was distinction (i.e. the fraction of cases where it's actually true that one can no longer experience said media is vanishingly small and therefor not worth appropriating the present/past distinction for that sense), and (b) that for the tiny fraction of no-longer-findable media, knowing/proving that a given piece of media is absolutely non-accessible is a task quite possibly beyond most people. Anyhow, I thank you for the due consideration you gave my comment, and I'm encouraged that others have thought about this. 74.196.117.211 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're certainly welcome to raise the matter at the appropriate Talk page if you'd like...though I think there was a fairly recent discussion on the matter. Anyway, hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I have brought this matter to ANI here. You are encouraged to present your counterarguments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification. A shame you either could not or would not bring yourself to be so cordial with regards to this matter prior to this point. DonIago (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2015 (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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The link to for info of the movie cujo
actually I did leave the proof for anyone to see in the edit page, which contained a link of the documentry on youtube. and here is the link again that gives more then enough facts about behind the scenes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xpm5VbYHLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.82.171 (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by 'edit page', sorry. Assuming the video's copyright is legit, just add it as a citation and you should be fine though. Also, just a quick FYI that new Talk page threads should generally be placed at the bottom of the page. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
American films
Category:American films is a non-diffusing category. If you look at the category's page itself, it clearly states that it all American films should be added to this category despite the fact that it is redundant. If you disagree with this, you should raise the issue at WT:FILM, where this has been hashed out multiple times. I originally removed this category from a few articles, and I was told this same thing, so I understand the confusion.5 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, good to know. Sorry about that! DonIago (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Joseph Kobzon
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joseph Kobzon. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Underworld
I don't know whether you get notifications for this / see it on your watchlist. --Lapilluminati (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I was out of town for the weekend and am just catching up now. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Weeknd
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Weeknd. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Futurama - Where No Fan Has Gone Before reversion
Help us understand why a continuity section, with links to the related content (other episodes of the same series), is unacceptable. This section is included in many other episode pages. In this case, some of it is edited from the talk page, where the discussion consensus is that some of it may be reintegrated if deemed appropriate. Regarding the "unsourced cruft" comment- I'm not sure what kind of published source you would find containing such information. It's not original research either (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions), it's simply links between episodes. To my understanding, this would fall in the wikipedia:verifiability standard. 24.255.191.18 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP articles should not include indiscriminate collections of information. With regards to things such as continuity, we establish the significance by providing sources that commented upon it. If no source commented on it, we likely should not do so either. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Version 2.0
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Version 2.0. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The War of the Worlds - formatting style
Copy-paste from my talk page: Hi there, no issue with you reverting me per se, but could you please link me to the appropriate area where that style was decided upon? I would think sub-sections would be a better choice than simply italicizing. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I argued the same thing, but can see the advantage of "tucking all the references in" as it cleans up the table of contents. See: discussion and archive. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me! DonIago (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)