User talk:Doniago/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

96.249.205.46

Hi. You wrote on User talk:96.249.205.46 that their edit contained original research. I believe you must have misread the edit, as "critical acclaim" is just another (nicer even?) way of writing "highly positive reviews", and doesn't actually change the essence of the article. The article in question (The Sixth Sense) would be better to not contain either phrase, and simply let the facts speak for themselves. —WOFall (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this has been discussed at WT:FILM and the consensus at the time was that a statement such as "critical acclaim" is a stronger assertion than "highly positive reviews", and as such it should be sourced if it's going to be used. Highly positive reviews can be substantiated via Rotten Tomatoes or such; critical acclaim implies a higher degree of reception. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's surprising, but so long as there's no misunderstandings. Thanks. —WOFall (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem! If it's a concern for you, you're welcome to discuss it at WT:FILM. DonIago (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello - RE: The 'Anthony Rapp' page edit

Hi Doniago,
Thanks for explaining to me the issue about adding comments/explanation when editing a wiki page, I'm new to wiki editing so I appreciate the info. About the edit I made on Anthony Rapp's page, I changed the section saying he was "one of the first openly gay men on broadway" to "one of the first openly queer men" due to him identifying as specifically queer rather than gay in the interview posted beneath that. I also checked the citations next to the "openly gay" part and saw that there was no mention of him stating he was gay, rather the writers of said articles mislabeling him as such.
I just checked his page and saw the clarification edited, I think that looks a lot better than the previous sentence just saying he was openly gay, so thank you for the edit. I would like to just change the part where it says "others have called him" to "others have mislabeled him as..." since it seems like a more accurate description.

Fair enough. As long as the information in the article matches what's said in the sources I'm happy. Thanks for getting in touch! DonIago (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re The_Farnsworth_Parabox

The The_Farnsworth_Parabox page has conflicting information. The summary on the right lists the episode as being Season four, Episode 10. The main article says that it is the "fifteenth episode of the fourth production season". The main article is correct and the summary should be updated to say Season 4, Episode 15.

 Fixed Looks good to me now; please let me (or ideally the article's Talk page) know if you spot any other problems, and thanks for bringing this to my attention! Also, please note that new Talk page threads should generally be placed at the bottom of the page. Thanks again! DonIago (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture items

Your understanding of community consensus is incorrect. Popcult items which are straightforeward description are sourced by the media item (book, film, etc.) which they refer to. Only those items which stray into analysis or interpretation need to be sourced. PLease do not continue to edit war over an incorrect understand of what is a non-mandatory guideline and not a policy. BMK (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that if you ignore the bold, revert, discuss process then you're the one edit-warring...it also seems to me it would be best to get a consensus rather than lecturing me about whether my interpretation is correct. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I didn't "lecture" you until your second revert of a legitimate -- i.e. not a "Bold" -- edit. BMK (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, those items were all in the Hudson Heights, Manhattan article, and have been for a long time. I moved them to Fort Tryon Park and The Cloisters because Hudson Heights was not the proper article for them, so there was no boldness involved, just simple editing. BMK (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The context helps, and thank you for providing that, but I still don't agree with your view on adding pop culture items without secondary sourcing (barring certain minimalist statements, but I think we can both agree that's not what these are). I think it would be best if we wait for additional editors to offer their perspective. DonIago (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. 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) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oathkeeper. Yet again.

How long are we supposed to put up with Darkfrog24 continually edit-warring her preferred version of the Writing section into the article? She goes to talk, sure, but clearly doesn't listen to anyone there. No less than three editors, two admins, a DRN and an RfC have told here in no uncertain terms that she cannot do precisely what she is doing. You noted that you were approaching your zero tolerance point; I've reached it. We talk and talk to her on the discussion page, and she essentially tells us we are all stupid, reiterates how she is right and everyone else is wrong, and then does whatever she wants. She wants that chapter material in, and doesn't care what sort of crap sources she shoves in there to fulfill a requirement she herself has stated she doesn't believe in.
It's time something was done, since the article is going nowhere this way. She is the sort of contributor who chases editors away from articles, from collaboration and from Wikipedia itself. Please do something. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So, no intent to do anything? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I must have missed your original message; sorry about that. I'm not an admin, but I guess my suggestions would be that you speak with either the individual who closed the RfC or the admin who blocked you both; either one of them is in a position of greater authority to work on the problem than I am. If you feel Darkfrog is edit-warring you could always try WP:ANEW but I don't know how well that would turn out. You could also try ANI again, but if you do your best chances are to focus on conduct issues and make sure you provide specific diffs. DonIago (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Corbomite Manuever

re: The corbomite maneuver & ron howard playing Balok during the roast of william shatner. you want a source? I watched it on TV, so ultimately the source is me. Is a youtube clip good enough as a source? The problem with putting youtube clips in as sources is sometimes the publicity gets the clips taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.71.53 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen YouTube clips used as references, but you'd have to make sure it's not a copyright violation. Other than that, any reliable source would do...but unfortunately Wikipedia editors aren't reliable sources. DonIago (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: The Edits to Transformers the Movie

Hello, Doniago. You have new messages at MDFinley's talk page.
Message added 16:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Comments of my talk page

Hello, Doniago. You have new messages at MDFinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.