User talk:Doniago/Archive 48
 | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
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) 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Talkpages
This is the diff of my talkpage of me removing FF's trolling. He then reverted my edit on my talkpage. I, of course, ignored his trolling and reverted it. Now if you can find me the diffs of me removing comments from his talkpage, I'd like to see them. And while you're busy with that, you can make good with an apology. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps my simply archiving your last message wasn't clear enough. I have no interest in further discussing this situation. I left you a good faith message because I thought you may have misunderstood the guidelines. I was not "throwing around accusations", and I don't appreciate you pouncing on me without even bothering to ask me what my intentions were. As far as I'm concerned, we're done here. DonIago (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Judd Winick
Hi. I just noticed that last year, you added two cite tags to the Judd Winick article, even though there were two citation at the end of that passage supporting that material. Why is this? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi there. Which citations are intended to apply to which information in that paragraph appears confusing, and the last citation provided appears to now be a dead link. Particularly given that this is a BLP, I would prefer to see each sentence cited accordingly, or at least each linked set of ideas. As-is, there's a large block of text in the middle of the paragraph with no citations, after a single sentence with two citations and before another single sentence with two citations and a final sentence with a citation. I would conclude that it would be better to repeat a citation for clarity than to leave the paragraph in its current unclear state. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, for my part, I have long-followed WP:PAIC, which indicates that the citations apply to the text that immediately precedes them. Citations are not repeated consecutively in the same paragraph, per WP:REPCITE, regardless of whether the text is a "large block", since citations are not intended exclusively for some small text size limit. In fact, I often remove such redundant citations, per that guideline.
- As for dead links, my understanding is that they should be addressed with the {{deadlink}} tag, which is what I use when I come across them. Thank you, however, for working to improve the article. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough on all counts. Given that we're talking about a change I made well over a year ago, I was somewhat speculating as to what I might have been thinking at the time. I really can't say whether, given the same circumstances now, I would make the same edit. If you feel it's clear enough which information is being covered by which citations, then I'm not likely to argue the matter. DonIago (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Heavy metal music
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Heavy metal music. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Invitation on a proposal
You are invited to the MOS/Film discussion here, regarding about release dates in year in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Re Mirror Mirror revert
I always considered "I shall consider it" a seminal "aha" moment in that episode. But if you feel it's unnecessary, so be it. TashTish (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't feel particularly strongly about the line as such, I just believe plot summaries should generally be shorter, and the line isn't essential to the plot of the episode. You're welcome to raise the question at the article's Talk page to see what other editors think, if you'd like. DonIago (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you that plot summaries in wikipedia tend to be overly long as it is. Re-reading my edit, it appeals more to the fanboy crowd than is encyclopedic, necessarily, but given its relative brevity, I'll throw it out there, with all due respect. Thanks for the guidance.TashTish (talk)
- No problem! DonIago (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you that plot summaries in wikipedia tend to be overly long as it is. Re-reading my edit, it appeals more to the fanboy crowd than is encyclopedic, necessarily, but given its relative brevity, I'll throw it out there, with all due respect. Thanks for the guidance.TashTish (talk)
Uninterruptible Power Supplies: Lemly Gilbert Addition of Alternative Power Sources. Explanation
Hi Doniago,
Just wanted to explain my contribution especially the lack of references. First of all, I am an electrical engineer who is experienced in writing professional papers and I am cognizant of the importance of references. However, my contribution was based on original information collected from evaluation and testing of the flywheel and ultra capacitor energy storage systems. Had I any outside references I would have included them. Moreover, I had a gut-feeling my post would be rejected for lack of references. Based on the above discussion, I request that you kindly reconsider your decision and allow my posting to be added to the discussion because it adds new critical information.
Thanks for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemly Gilbert (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Lemly, I understand your concern, but information published on Wikipedia must be verifiable. While I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about, it sounds like the information is original research, which would mean it is inappropriate for inclusion. You may wish to ask other editors for their opinions at the article's Talk page. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Game discography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Game discography. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 November 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) 13:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The Bourne Legacy(film)
Doniago, recently you reverted several improvements on the Bourne Identify plot information because "they added a significant amount of unneeded detail." This action was inappropriate on your part because many of the edits were necessary and improved the accuracy of the plot. For example, the current plot claims that the chems improve Aaron's capabilities. The correct statement should be that the chems improved Aaron's abilities. Second, the D-track team was not "eliminated" by Aaron, rather the members of the team were killed. Maybe some people think that eliminated sounds cooler, or something, but it is not an accurate phrase. Additionally, the plot claims that Aaron's recruiter added 12 points to his IQ. This is not only wrong but also impossible. The recruiter added 12 points to his score so as to make it seem that he was more intelligent than he actually was. In conclusion, if you think my edits add unnecessary detail then remove the detail, don't just revert changes that you don't understand.190.81.202.250 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please see WP:FILMPLOT. Plot summaries should be between 400-700 words. Your edits brought the summary to 798 words, a violation of that guideline. You are welcome to make edits that will include the changes you'd like made while keeping the summary below 700 words. Alternately you're welcome to initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page to reach a consensus that the guideline should be disregarded for this film. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Help needed at DRN
You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Borderline personality disorder
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Borderline personality disorder. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)