User talk:Doniago/Archive 43
 | 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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
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) 00:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The IP is a long-banned / sock user who likes to add one often irrelevant change after another. Most recently Special:Contributions/108.73.113.2. See the IP's edit history; the linked word is usually enclosed in parens. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. Per wp:deny, the IP's edits are rolled back. No problem with someone else adding the change (or undoing my revert). Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 15:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, I rolled back about 200 of the anon's recent IP (108.73.113.2) edits. I probably have rolled back probably perhaps a thousand or more of the anon's previous reincarnations. Rather large amount to comment on each. Please, wp:dttr. Best Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 15:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. DonIago (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of Murder, She Wrote episodes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Murder, She Wrote episodes. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Notability of individual Star Trek episodes
The problem here is you seem to misunderstand what "notability" is about. It is NOT about improving the quality of an article; it is about whether or not it should exist at all. Your notability challenges should have been accompanied by AfD nominations (or the like), because the proper action for a successful notability challenge is to delete the article entirely, or similar action such as a merge or redirect. (The lack of AfD nominations is probably why no one else has chimed in.) Your challenges are also facially improper because you are challenging only one out of 79 TOS episodes and only three ("Time's Arrow" was a two-parter) out of 176 TNG episodes; even assuming your claimed criteria, it is extremely unlikely that these would be the ONLY episodes across all FIVE Star Trek canon series (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT) to be non-notable, especially as TOS & TNG are the two most notable series. I am reverting them again; please don't reinstate your challenges unless you can show why ONLY these episodes should be challenged, and then only with accompanying AfD nominations (or the like). If you only wish to improve the articles, proceed under one of the other tags (which I have not changed). --RBBrittain (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I just now see that another editor has already reverted you on "Cause and Effect". I agree entirely with Chaheel Riens' edit summaries, and would apply them to all three articles: Improving the quality of references is NOT a valid reason for a notability challenge. --RBBrittain (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to compromise by exchanging one maintenance tag for another, be my guest; in my opinion they speak to the same issues with the articles. DonIago (talk) 14:16, 11 July 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) 23:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Maintenance Tag on Ryan Howard
I hate to break this to you, but that tag has been on Ryan Howard for 3½ years.
If you think it is such a noteworthy issue, then YOU should be the one to resolve it. The tag is a distraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.159.218 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) There is no time limit for tags like this and yes I have seen ones much older. They are not a distraction, rather they encourage any and all in helping to fix the article. MarnetteD|Talk 18:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Beyond what MarnetteD said, the most appropriate course of action, as outlined at WP:BRD would be to raise the question at the article's Talk page so that other editors could offer their opinions and a consensus could be reached. Continually removing the tag, particularly when, as said, it is doing no harm to the article and might ultimately help it, is edit-warring and decidedly not the best way to proceed. DonIago (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The Bourne Legacy
If a meteoritic indicates a movie got mixed reviews but rotten tomatoes is above 60% (fresh) that means it can be considered mixed to positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kido1234567890 (talk • contribs)
- Firstly, new posts should generally be added to the bottom of Talk pages; I've taken the liberty of relocating this.
- Secondly, you should generally sign posts by adding four tildes (~) to the end.
- Did you mean Metacritic? In any case, using ranges to discuss reception is generally discouraged, but you're welcome to ask about this at WT:FILM. Also, to interpret reviews in such a manner can be considered synthesis. If there is disagreement about a film's reception in terms of any sort of summary, then in most cases it is best to eliminate any sort of summary statement and let the film review sites speak for themselves. There's no actual need for a summary.
- If you disagree, you're welcome to ask the question at the film's Talk page, where more editors may weigh in. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Predator 2
I would argue that my edits are not superfluous, it's important to the understanding of the film of why Keyes and his team are pursuing the Predator. Robert Davi's character isn't a captain but a deputy chief which is a factual inaccuracy, whilst it's important to understand why Garber's team let Harrigan go in the end. The current plot summary makes not reference whatsoever to the character of Tony Pope or the graveyard scene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamrockawakening (talk • contribs)
- You're welcome to discuss your changes at the article's Talk page, but WP:FILMPLOT, while only a guideline, specifies that plot summaries should generally be 400-700 words.
- Also, please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) to the end. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Psycho III Edits
What is your problem with adding "Mother" says "Norman" at the end of the Psycho III plot? Benrudin (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- The plot summary has been tagged for being too long since 2010. In my estimation, your edit had incorrect grammar, broke the fourth wall, didn't significantly add to an understanding of the plot and added to the length of an already overly-long plot summary. I think that covers it, but if you'd like opinions from other editors you're welcome to raise the matter at the article's Talk page. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bad Girls Club
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bad Girls Club. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Whisperback
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 01:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
S/S American Victory
Hello, User:Doniago
I am here to discuss the 3 hours of work you removed from the SS American Victory. The information i put there was from a published book. S/S American Victory by Charles M. Russ Jr., the ships historian. I am a former volunteer aboard the ship, any information from that book can be heard in any group tour. The book can also be bought in the ships gift shop, and ANY crewmember can tell you it is true. Information about the ship's towing to Tampa Bay by the Sharon de Hart can be found here *[1]
I am quite frustrated that my hard work has been removed and i hope you understand my frustration.
Cheers mate, --Luis Santos24 (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Already replied to this up above. DonIago (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)