User talk:Doniago/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Harold and Kumar plot summary
Hey, I've shortened and corrected the summary for Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, cleaned out some of the redundancy of the previous material as well. AngusWOOF (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It's looking pretty good now, thanks for your work! I made a few additional changes as well. Doniago (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. That's probably more than I want to remember from that film, but glad we made it concise. You might want to take a shot at the Harold & Kumar page too. AngusWOOF (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Showing the ease of editing to A level students
Hello, You just sent me a message with regards to changes I made on Dracula (1992 film). Those changes were always going to be temporary. I am a school librarian and wanted to highlight to my students how easy it is to change information on wikipedia and how they should only use it as a starting point for any research they undertake. I chose Dracula because they are studying it and they like humour, so I put our English teachers names in. Merely telling them you can edit is very different to actually doing it. The point was made to them. You did not give me the chance to change it back! Well Done for being so hot on it. Hedgescaroline (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for the explanation. Going forward, if you're making quick changes that you fully intend to revert you may want to leave an edit summary to that effect, or, even better, make a note on the article's Talk page so that editors who are monitoring the page will know what's going on...as you noticed, without communication it appeared to be a disruptive edit. You may also be interested in looking at Wikipedia:School and university projects and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination depending on where your specific interests lie. As far as the note I left for you, you're welcome to delete it...that is generally interpreted as a sign that an editor has read and understood the warning. Please let me know if you have any questions, though please note that I'm not especially familiar with the projects I linked to. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia as source
Doniago: I understand that wikipedia can be self referenced as source, doen't it? --Sully76 (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Sully, please note that generally new Talk page threads should be started at the bottom of a page. As to your question, that's absolutely a negative - WP:CIRCULAR covers this, but the short answer is that Wikipedia can't be self-referenced because the underlying article being used as a reference could be changed or even deleted, in which case the original source would be lost. Rather than linking to the article that has the source, copy the actual source into the article with the unsourced statement. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Please keep the new image.
On the Taylor Kitsch page, there were two images on there the older one you were referring to was this one that was originally there was this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TaylorKitschFeb12.jpg an image that I uploaded months ago. Then someone uploaded a file was this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Taylor_Kitsch,_2012.jpg - which didn't have correct permissions or source. Today I uploaded a picture from this month from the Savages Premiere from Monday June 25 2012 and the image I uploaded was latest and correct permissions & source on the file. So please can you carefully follow edits next time. Please keep the latest image file from the Savages premiere dated June 25, 2012. Link to latest image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TaylorKitschJun2012.jpg Many Thanks & Kindest Regards. ~ Randomgurlx (talk) - 5:41 PM GMT - 29 June 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please discuss at the article's Talk page so that interested editors can weigh in. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand and thank you. - Randomgurlx (talk) - 5:56 PM (GMT) - 29 June 2012
Edit summaries are not required
As was my edit on the gate(movie)article. The snare (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 00:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Message
I am not going to make the modification to the Independence Day movie page, you win.
SO STOP TELLING ME TO DISCUSS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!173.76.119.10 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen Song)
Hi. I went to the page for Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen Song) the other day and updated the "Other Cover Versions" section to say that Marcy Playground will have a cover of this song on their upcoming album, but when I looked today, it was gone. I noticed that you removed it because I needed to "establish significance". I'm new to Wikipedia (well, the editing part anyway), and I don't understand everything yet, so will you please explain this to me? What I wrote was true, and it was in the correct section... Thanks.
Zdase27 (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Zdase, thanks for getting in touch. WP:IPC, while it's an essay rather than policy or guidelines, covers this in some detail, but the gist is that Wikipedia articles should not contain "indiscriminate" lists. In this case, if we're going to discuss covers of "Hallelujah", we should ensure that the covers are considered significant in some manner; the best way to do this is to provide a third-party source that has discussed the cover. For instance, if I record a cover of "Hallelujah" myself, that could theoretically be added to the list of covers, but it would hardly be significant. Even if the person doing the cover is themselves significant, that doesn't mean that the cover itself is. I hope this all makes sense, but please let me know if you have more questions! Doniago (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Thanks for clearing this up. Zdase27 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Renaming of Triborough Bridge (Again. No Joke.)
The_Interloafer (talk · contribs) is requesting that “Triborough Bridge” be moved back to its old title of “Robert F. Kennedy Bridge”. (Again.) You voiced an opinion during the last move discussion (a few weeks ago, I know), so I wanted to bring it to your attention. This new discussion is at Talk:Triborough Bridge#This article needs to be renamed. 142.255.89.109 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Peter Lorre
The references you required were in the articles I linked that acknowledged the characterisation of Lorre for Toad and Morocco Mole. Will you be performing corresponding edits of those articles considering they do not have citations either? I would be grateful if you would undo your edit as your justification for doing so is invalid unless you also edit the entries for Secret Squirrel and Drak Pack as they have exactly the same criteria.
I do feel I have grounds for complaint for your action. Obviously you have grounds of justification. I just think that my argument is superior in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthorgan (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure why you inserted a new thread into the middle of my Talk page, but I've moved it to the bottom, which is generally standard for a new Talk page thread.
- Wikilinks are not reliable sources (I actually mentioned that in an earlier thread on this page). If the linked articles have reliable sources, you are welcome to reinsert your information with the actual sources provided. If they do not have reliable sources, then there's a larger issue.
- Editors are under no obligation to act on unsourced material. If you would like me to look the other articles over, I can try to do so when time permits. Otherwise you're of course welcome to make changes yourself. Regarding your claim that my edits are invalid if I don't apply them universally, that's kind of silly. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; there will always be areas on WP that need improvement, and no one editor can be expected to fix everything; their failure to do so does not imply that other edits they've made are somehow inappropriate.
- Regards. Doniago (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 23:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, the additions which I made to this page are all based on the books themselves. What better source can there be for details of the fictional world depicted in a work of fiction than the work of fiction itself? Andreas Kaganov
- You should name the specific book(s) and page numbers where the information is brought up, not leave it to a reader to guess where information is discussed. You may also wish to review WP:PRIMARY; make sure that you state information exactly as presented in the books rather than offering original research. Doniago (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI, your block request was declined at WP:AIV and the deciding admin suggested you take the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
This doesn't mean that the IP wasn't causing problems or shouldn't be dealt with -- just that this other noticeboard was the appropriate venue to take the problem. I wasn't involved; I'm just passing this along in case you hadn't seen the response to your request.
Thanks for taking this problem IP on -- this sort of problem editing is very vexing! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Munchausen sourcing
Thanks for your advice and explanation, Don Iago :-). I have found a source to back up my own (OR) observation, and restored the comment, quoting the source in a reference. I hope this will suffice. Thnidu (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Straw poll
I like your idea for a straw poll for that discussion, but would you classify yourself as "Neutral" or otherwise? Kurt Parker (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
What makes a fictional element "significant"?
Hi, you reverted my edit on List_of_fictional_elements,_materials,_isotopes_and_atomic_particles asking for a third party source in order to establish "significance". Apart from the fact that I don't see a single entry on that list with a third-party source establishing any kind of sigificance, what could be the significance of... Afraidium? Agricide? Alkahest? etc..., compared to one of the central elements of a multiple-award winning franchise that has sold several millions of copies in games and tie-in products. Frankly, I don't see how any entry's significance on this list could be established, let alone in the video game world, which hopelessly lacks "third-party sources" useful to that goal... if you insist on that procedure (which is impossible), then the whole list has to go. -- megA (talk)
- Cleaning the article up has been on my to-do list for awhile, and the article's been tagged for needing citations since 2010. No argument that getting it up to WP standards will be a bit of an undertaking, but it's clearly currently in blatant violation of WP:Source list. Doniago (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
reversion of my edit
You reverted my edit to List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters claiming that there was no source cited. The source is directly below the bio of Michael Eddington. If it needs citation tags, please feel free to add them yourself instead of reverting my edit. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that wikis are not reliable sources and that per WP:BURDEN sources should be provided at the time you add new information. Editors are permitted to remove unsourced information at the time it is added rather than requesting a citation and waiting. That said, you're welcome to reinsert the information, citing the specific episodes in which it was brought up. Doniago (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
A Question
How do you handle unsourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 21:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on the circumstances. If I can identify who inserted it and it's a recent contribution, I'll generally undo it and leave the editor a note, usually based off one of the standard templates (and then, usually the people I'm notifying are new'ish editors and the template provides a number of useful links). If I can't identify who inserted it or it's not a recent contribution I'll tag the material and usually give it at least a couple of months before I take any other action. Doniago (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not put in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed? Wouldn't that be a little less disruptive, as the information can stay and the editor can either fill in the citation or delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I'd do in the second case, but it's been my experience that many editors (especially IPs) don't necessarily notice that their information has been tagged, much less are inclined to delete it on their own initiative, and my view is that it's preferable to limit the amount of unsourced information in an article, even unsourced information that's been tagged for needing a citation. Presumably the person most likely to have a source for information is the editor who added it initially, and removing their information and notifying them provides them with notice that they shouldn't be adding unsourced information to begin with (WP:BURDEN), and with the resources they need, via links, to properly source information going forward. In short, it's a learning experience.
- In any event, I don't consider it disruptive to remove unsourced information, nor do I believe there is any policy that states that removing unsourced information is a disruptive behavior. On the other hand, policy does support an editor's right to remove unsourced information at any time. In other words, by tagging one is technically being "nicer" than one is strictly required to be. Doniago (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. " Which means, imho, that not all facts have to have a source.
It continues to state "However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.[1]" Which means, again imho, it is not required to have ANY sources as long as the facts have not been challenged or likely to be challenged.
So, let me ask you another question: Why would a fact such as an amusement park not charging an entrance fee (which started this whole mess) be challenged? Were you challenging the fact? If yes then please challenge it and ask for a citation, if not wouldn't it be simpler (forget nicer) to just leave it alone? While at it why not remove the statement before which was also unsourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, it doesn't matter why someone chooses to challenge an unsourced statement; what matters is that the statement has been challenged...heck, the simple fact that the statement doesn't have a source, to me, seems like reasonable justification for challenging it.
- Please review WP:MINREF. Removing a statement is a legitimate form of challenging it. You may not like it, and perhaps it's not the "nicest" way of handling it, but policy allows an editor to remove any unsourced information at any time. In short, while there was nothing specifically "wrong" with adding this information without a source to begin with, as soon as it was challenged the burden was on you (or any editor who wished to include the information) to provide one. If I hadn't known that you were the editor who added the information I would probably have tagged it. As-is, why tag it and wait 2-3 months for a citation that may never show up?
- You're welcome to disagree with how I handle unsourced information, but as I've noted previously, policy supports my approach even if it isn't necessarily "best practice" or "nice". But then, given our past interactions I'm not convinced that "nice" is one of your foremost concerns.
- Editors are not required to remove unsourced information, so asking why I didn't remove something seems like a silly question. You're welcome to remove it yourself if you'd like, or if you'd like me to review the article for unsourced information that I feel should be removed, please let me know and I will do so when time permits. Doniago (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"...given our past interactions I'm not convinced that "nice" is one of your foremost concerns" Ouch that almost sounded noncivil. I am just glad you admit your way is not very nice.
As for asking why you didn't delete something being a silly question, my point was it seems a bit silly to have deleted what I had added, and once you were being silly you might as well be full on silly, and delete everything that doesn't have a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Given the current overall sad state of the article (it's been tagged since 2009), I'm not really inclined to make small changes when I think a much larger overhaul is needed (put another way - why should I delete one old sentence when any substantive overhaul is likely to deal with it anyway?). That being said, I'm happy to do what I can to keep the article from deteriorating further, such as with the addition of unsourced information. Hopefully at some point a motivated editor will bring the article up to a higher standard. Doniago (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it make more sense to tag the unsourced information of actual users you can identify, then leave them a notice to add a source lest you remove their edit altogether, rather than to extend this courtesy to IPs, who will in all likelihood never return? To put it another way, it seems your practice leaves the worst offenses alone while frustrating many identifiable editors. I loathe unsourced material so I don't necessarily take issue with your method; I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind it. Having read through your talk page, I think I understand much better some guidelines regarding unsourced material. Thanks! Brakoholic (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I guess to some degree it's a matter of how much faith you have in IP editors to begin with. (smile) The reality is that how editors handle unsourced material ultimately boils down to each editor's perspective on the situation...as it is an editor can legitimately remove unsourced material without leaving a note of any kind, if they're so inclined. Different editors tend to have different views on the "nicest" and "best practice" ways of dealing with unsourced material...which may be why the actual policies are so loosely-framed to begin with.
- The reason I tend to notify editors is not just so that they'll know their additions were reverted, but also because if you use the template messages, useful links are provided to the pertinent policies and information about how to source material properly...i.e. they're instructional. The templates of course can also be changed by consensus and reflect the input of multiple editors...given my own occasionally less-than-subtle methods of speaking, I prefer using words that reflect the opinions of multiple people to going out on my own limb. In a best-case scenario, then, the IP will see the notice and then return to re-add their information with a proper citation.
- I apologize for being so roundabout in this note; sleep-deprivation can be fun. But I think what it boils down to for me is that I would much rather not see information in an article then see tagged information, which to my mind may be essentially worthless anyhow (and much of the information added by IPs that I remove for being unsourced is probably unsourced because it's also untrue, in which case I think it's better off not being there to begin with). Editors monitoring an article can see when I remove unsourced information in any case, and I always note that the lack of sourcing is the reason why the information was removed, so...I think there's sufficient notice for people interested in an article that text was removed because it lacked a reference.
- I hope this helps! Please feel free to let me know if you'd like me to try to clarify any of this. Doniago (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it make more sense to tag the unsourced information of actual users you can identify, then leave them a notice to add a source lest you remove their edit altogether, rather than to extend this courtesy to IPs, who will in all likelihood never return? To put it another way, it seems your practice leaves the worst offenses alone while frustrating many identifiable editors. I loathe unsourced material so I don't necessarily take issue with your method; I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind it. Having read through your talk page, I think I understand much better some guidelines regarding unsourced material. Thanks! Brakoholic (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
references for Robbie the Robot on The Banana Splits
It was mentioned in the "Robbie the Robot" wikipedia entry.
Here's the "Robbie the Robot" entry from IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1119475/
And here's a photo: http://danefield.com/alpha/forums/topic/5424-robby-the-robot-on-the-banna-splits-tv-show-1968/
- Unfortunately, per WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Similarly, forums are not considered reliable sources, though if you could uncover the original credit for the photo that might point you in the direction of an appropriate source. If it is mentioned in Robbie's Wikipedia article, you can copy the source used there...if it isn't sourced there, that's also a problem. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 00:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Daria on MTV, July-August 2012
I changed the paragraph about Daria currently being shown on MTV for the reason that it will continue to air due to massive fan response. The deal was, if #MoreDaria was used on Twitter at least 10,000 times during the first week, the show would be on for another week. The sources in question (web pages are unknown) are the 10-second bumpers shown during the marathons. They would air with a message like "If #MoreDaria is tweeted 10k times, we'll show another week of Daria! We just need 1,234 more, keep going!", followed by a picture of Daria (the main character) inside the MTV logo. An instrumental of the show's theme song plays throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.133.203 (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you can find something about it on the MTV website, that would constitute a reliable source, but we can't just claim that these bumpers were shown or that the Twitter thing existed without providing some sort of citation...that would be original research; readers need to be able to verify any claims we make. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Dharma Initiative Edits
I'm adding the references now. All of the information I posted are part of the television program's cannon. Instead of making a blanket "undo" of all updates, in the future you might do research to verify additions as true and add references yourself. This is more in line with Wikipedia's mission rather than squelching any new information.
--24.61.131.191 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the issue here. It is not whether an article is a source, but instead whether there's a point to duplicating citations. Where a list only includes entries that have articles and those articles themselves contain appropriate citations, as we have here with all of the awards listed, it is quite common not to bother importing those citations into the list because it's unnecessary where a reader can just click through. About the only instance I can think of where this is categorically unsatisfactory (as demonstrated by past consensus) is where the list raises BLP concerns that would necessitate direct citation.
I'd also argue that the very nature of the information here makes additional sourcing unnecessary. The purpose that a citation serves is to direct a reader to where the information can be verified. But stating, for example, that PT Anderson was nominated for Best Original Screenplay for Boogie Nights at the 70th Academy Awards does that inherently. Any notable award/nomination is issued by a known institution analogous to a source's author, we have the name of the award, and the year or ordinal gives the date of issuance, all of which very clearly directs us how to verify the nomination, either from the official source of the institution's nominations or its ceremony, or from the innumerable secondary sources reporting on the nominations or awards ceremony.
So given that 1) there are citations already in the linked award articles, and 2) the names and dates of the awards themselves provide sufficient information for verification, further adding inline citations to the awards table just seems to me to be unnecessary clutter without any real benefit. postdlf (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually. It is necessary. WP:CIRCULAR. The sources should be copied to the film article. If you disagree you're welcome to start a discussion at the article's Talk page, but it is not appropriate to use other WP articles as sources or links to sources. I'm honestly not sure where you got the impression that it was okay not to include the sources directly within the article. Additionally, if you review many7 film articles, and certainly any FA or GA ones, you will see that the film awards are sourced. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- That may be FILM practice, I don't know. But my experience with stand alone lists generally is that many editors believe it isn't necessary when the list consists entirely of article links. CIRCULAR doesn't address either of my points (the second of which you have yet to comment on), because, as I pointed out, the issue isn't whether an article itself is a source, but whether it's necessary to repeat citations in every linked article. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- If many editors believed the Earth was flat, that wouldn't make it so, and policy states that any information that has been challenged should be reliably sourced; tagging information is a legitimate challenge. WP:CIRCULAR explicitly states that Wikipedia links are not sufficient as sources; the source itself should be provided. The point of repeating citations is that there's no guarantee that the linked article won't be modified (or even deleted) in such a manner that it would no longer verify the material in question.
- If you simply feel that sourcing isn't necessary, you're welcome to feel that way, but that's a matter to discuss at the article's Talk page so that a consensus can be reached. Doniago (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- That may be FILM practice, I don't know. But my experience with stand alone lists generally is that many editors believe it isn't necessary when the list consists entirely of article links. CIRCULAR doesn't address either of my points (the second of which you have yet to comment on), because, as I pointed out, the issue isn't whether an article itself is a source, but whether it's necessary to repeat citations in every linked article. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Queen of The Damned film
I recently removed content in reference to Allan Menzies as I felt that this information was fiction not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyjade89 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you would feel that way, given it was reliably sourced. Could you please elaborate? Doniago (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well would you like to prove that your information is true as I can prove it is false! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyjade89 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not my information; I didn't add it. However, it is reliably sourced. If you're going to claim that it's inaccurate, please provide a source of your own. Doniago (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Allan Menzies from West Lothian, Scotland, UK was arrested for the murder of best friend Thomas McKendrick in 2003. Allan decided to make up a story so he could plead insanity during the trial, thinking he would get a less custodial sentence. Queen of the Damned was one of recent films Allan had watched, so he used this film and it's character Akasha. Allan claimed that Akasha had come to him in his mind and told him to murder Thomas, eat part of his brain and drink his blood. However this plan did not work and the Scottish Court disregarded these claims. In the inquest and post-mortem of Thomas McKendrick, it showed that Thomas' skull was intact and that there was no indication that his skull had been cracked or damaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyjade89 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Allan Menzies was a close family member of mine... It is upsetting to see fiction or half stories on sites like these. Please at least help print the true story if people insist on reading about it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyjade89 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the text as-is satisfies WP:V. You may be able to bring up your concerns at the WP:HELPDESK to see whether they have other advice, but editors are not reliable sources. I could just as easily say that Allan is a close family member of mine, so you see our predicament... If you can find a reliable source that contradicts the existing text, you're welcome to edit the article based on whatever information it provides. Best of luck with this. Doniago (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The case has been closed as not requiring any administrator action and will shortly be archived. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Jekyll (TV series) EDIT
I apologise for editing this Wikipedia article, I misread some of the information, and would just like to let you know that I did not do it on purpose. Sorry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.110.161 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem! I figured it was probably unintentional. (smile) You're welcome delete the message I left on your page if you'd like...the whole point of those messages is to notify editors to potential issues with their edits...deleting it is a valid way of saying "read and understood". Cheers! Doniago (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Edits
What if I just want to have fun with this? I'm not trying to ruin people's reps, I'm just following the words of the Colbert Report. It said to create Wikiality by changing the pages. I'm sorry if I offended you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.53.194 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you just want to have fun, you can always play with your WP:SANDBOX. Doniago (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Headless Horseman
Hi. You sent a note saying you had deleted my edit on the Headless Horseman page because it needed a source. Do you just need a source for the book? Or did you need a source for the comment that the book was a bestseller on Kindle? By the way, I DID initially provide a source for the novel, but it was deleted when you deleted the first entry because "significance needed." I'm not complaining, just trying to figure out exactly what you are looking for before I try to edit it again. Thanks, Headlesshorseman42 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Headlesshorseman42
- If you're saying anything like "The Headless Horseman also appears in X", you need a third-party source establishing that X is somehow considered significant. WP:IPC covers this in some detail. For a statement like "the book was a bestseller on Kindle", you'd need a source for that as well. Hope this helps, please let me know if you have additional questions! Doniago (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 00:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
labels, etc
I have a concern about the text of the edit at film style Cast section that you might consider. We now have the statement: a good plot summary should convey these roles, or words to that effect. The problem here is that it is subject to a misinterpretation, because some might take this as a charge to include the labels in the plot summary. That is why I thought we should say something like: let the reader figure it out for themselves from the plot summary. Actually, we mean the latter, so it might be good to say that. Thanks. (I'll watch this page for your response.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see what you mean; unfortunately "convey" isn't clearly an implicit or explicit term. I'm cynical enough to admit that I doubt anyone likely to invoke those roles in the first place is likely to read WP:FILMCAST, for whatever that's worth. I don't think saying "A well-written plot summary should imply such roles", while it would clarify our meaning, sounds very good. "A well-written plot summary should enable readers to interpolate characters' roles"? Ehhh... Doniago (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Leave it to the reader to understand these roles from the plot summary." But perhaps you are uncomfortable addressing the editor? Okay, then we say, "The plot summary, if well written, makes these labels unnecessary." Maybe? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- "We leave it to the reader to understand these roles from a well-written plot summary." Bingo? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think any changes should be brought up on the Talk page before being written-in, but besides that point...I'm sorry, but I'm not really thrilled with any of your variants. I think my issue is that in any other context, I would ask why we would leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions rather than spelling it out, which is why I think the "it's original research to invoke the roles without a reliable source" is such a good argument against their inclusion. I do feel it's unnecessarily pedantic to include them in any case, but if you read my Talk page you'll see there's a whole bunch of editors who think my approach to sourcing (and how I handle unsourced material) is hopelessly pedantic, so who am I to judge others' pedantry?
- If you're intent on going through with this, my suggestion would be, "A well-written plot summary enables a reader to understand these roles, rather than providing an editor's interpretation." Hm. Actually, I kind of like that one... Doniago (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- We don't need to say that interpretation is against the rules, so we can cut that. That leaves "A well-written plot summary enables a reader to understand these roles." That is clumsy, so let's reverse the sentence. "The reader should understand these roles from a well-written plot summary." Simplicity itself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I actually find the reversed sentence less clear than the "clumsy" version, myself. But I'd like at least a third-opinion, certainly before any changes are made to the guideline. Doniago (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Of course I wouldn't change it without taking it to the group. Semantically, I don't see a difference between us. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I actually find the reversed sentence less clear than the "clumsy" version, myself. But I'd like at least a third-opinion, certainly before any changes are made to the guideline. Doniago (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- We don't need to say that interpretation is against the rules, so we can cut that. That leaves "A well-written plot summary enables a reader to understand these roles." That is clumsy, so let's reverse the sentence. "The reader should understand these roles from a well-written plot summary." Simplicity itself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- "We leave it to the reader to understand these roles from a well-written plot summary." Bingo? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Leave it to the reader to understand these roles from the plot summary." But perhaps you are uncomfortable addressing the editor? Okay, then we say, "The plot summary, if well written, makes these labels unnecessary." Maybe? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Fictional elements
Hiya. I added the fictional substance yominium, which is referenced in a number of Star Trek books and on sites. I wasn't sure if I could reference the Star Trek wiki page Memory Alpha. It is referenced in the 1st Edition of "The Star Trek Encyclopedia, A Reference Guide to the Future". I can add that reference to it. Kumorifox (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Heya, thanks for getting in touch. Unfortunately, because wikis, much like Wikipedia, can be edited by anyone, they are not suitable reliable sources. Rather than using a Star Trek book (even the Encyclopedia) as a reference though, you should use a third-party source; this establishes that the substance has some degree of significance outside the fanbase. I realize the article currently has numerous substances listed that don't have third-party sources provided, but that's more of a testament to the sad state of the article than anything else...one of these days I'm planning to try to clean that up a bit. Hope this helps, and you're definitely welcome to start a discussion at the article's Talk page if you disagree or just would like the opinions of other editors! Doniago (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Arkham Asylum
Sure Thats easy for me to provide evidence!
http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l517/malkosundervere/cocmainwin322010-12-2717-58-12-91.gif
From my own steam screenshots
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=90302985&insideModal=1
If you would like more or Video's feel free to let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kouen2010 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, pictures are not reliable sources, and definitely not pictures you took yourself. Sorry. Doniago (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)