Open main menu
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5



Thanks for reverting the vandal's edit on my talk page. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverts on Taylorville, Illinois

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that the IP editor in this case was removing material that was inappropriate for Wikipedia, from what it sounds like they communicated to me it was a hoax, but in any case a non-notable person in a notable residents section without sources. I've explained to them that they need to use edit summaries in the future. I'm not trying to call you out, I just want you to know what's going on with a situation that you were involved in. Happy editing. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Doniago (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Misguided newbies

Thanks for this edit. I don't want to be the only one reverting the edits of this guy and his alter ego, so it's nice to have a "second opinion" in support. Perhaps you can drop a polite word on his user talk page to reinforce the message that he's a little misguided? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Not a lot of editors are faster than me on the anti-vand for my own talk page. Thanks!  superβεεcat  22:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 08:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention on my talk page

It's appreciated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warn rv

I have reverted this warning template, as it is not considered vandalism. Please AGF to edits like these. Cheers, ZooFari 04:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how was that not vandalism? Very confused here. Doniago (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong link: this one. ZooFari 04:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay...maybe I'm more tired than I think I am, but I'm still confused here. Doniago (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I thought that was the BLP itself, sorry! I'm the one that's tired. ZooFari 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
We should probably be learning something from this experience. :) Anyway, I'm heading off for the night. We can talk about this more, or not. Doniago (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
G'night, I need to lay-off the wiki too :-) ZooFari 05:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Is there anyway that you could remove the messages to my Talk page? I reported that they were mistakes and explained to Bot, but I haven't heard back. Thank you Snackshack100 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Doniago (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You so much!!! Snackshack100 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Human knot

Hello Doniago, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Human knot has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - subject is a notable activity and the article's problems can be solved through editing - remove "how to" and other unencyclopedic information, format reference)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


For the housekeeping. Regards Tiderolls 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Disneyland

I saw you issued a Level 4 warning on an IP I've been dealing with regarding articles relating to Hong Kong Disneyland. I looked at this most recent change, and it appears that the park's ambassador is indeed Jacky Cheung. Please see this source, which verifies that Mr. Cheung, not Mr. Chan, is (or at least was) the park's ambassador. Based on how this IP is editing, I have a feeling they'll trigger another warning soon. All that said, thank you for keeping an eye on the article, and this particular IP. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, sorry if I jumped the gun. Doniago (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure why I double-checked this one. I think it was that maybe it was Jackie Chan, and that "Cheung" may have been "Chan" in a different dialect (I don't speak Chinese, so no clue if this is even possible). This IP does bear watching ... seems to be doing fan-boy edits. I started following the IP when they started saying that a new attraction announced for the park, "Mystic Manor," is going to be HK Disneyland's Haunted Mansion. While probably true, there's nothing verifiable to say that, so until someone says otherwise, "Mystic Manor" is a new type of attraction making its debut at HK Disneyland. No worries, and thanks again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maniac (album)

FYI, you removed the hangon tag when you restored the DB tag. Something to watch for when using Huggle. (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the history

You've issued a 3rr warning recently I think that makes 5 in 2 days for the one user. I haave an admin to intervene.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I was about to report them myself after seeing yet another edit to the Star Trek film page. Doniago (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Moon "Men"

Thank you for reverting the astronaut page vandalism. This person has continued to do this over a number of months to the pages of the 24 astronauts who flew to the moon. A discussion has begun on WT:SPACE if you wished to look, and perhaps assist. I second the idea of protecting the pages for a while. Edgeshappy12 (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work.

Checking whether a warning is warranted before issuing one to a newbie (which I'm not, by the way) might be a better policy in the future than reverting it after the fact. Not only would that be friendlier to new users, you'll also avoid looking like a warn-happy douchebag! (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Redshirt Cultural Impact

I'm all for removing that section (as irrelevant trivia) but it was sourced... Lots42 (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take the discussion about keeping or removing this section to Talk:Redshirt_(character) Samboy (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mamma Mia! film

Hi Doniago. I see that you have removed an edit that I made to this article, as "unsourced." The edit concerned the production of Mamma Mia. I stated that part of the beginning was filmed at Lloyds in London and you removed this information. I wonder why? Firstly, it is self-evident, if you look at the film, that the building is Lloyds. Secondly, I am a City of London Guide, and I was passing that building with a tour group during the very filming of the sequence. Actually, I would have thought that the second bit of information, which is anecdotal, obviously, is not needed, because the building is CLEARLY Lloyds of Lime Street. The information therefore does not require "sourcing." I have replaced my information and would ask you to leave it intact. I am a well-motivated contributor to Wikipedia. If you need to reply, please take it to my Talk page. FClef (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest reviewing WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Something being "self-evident" is insufficient grounds for inclusion. Your background similarly is insufficient. I could just as easily claim the same credentials, could I not? It doesn't matter how "clear" something is, people here have the right to ask for a 3rd party citation, and if you can't provide one, the information can be considered inappropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Blanked page

Sorry about the blanked page, I forgot to put the redirect again and thanks for mending it! -- CaTi0604 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Doniago (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Scream (film)

At last! A sensible pair of eyes looking over this. I tried to maintain it a couple of years ago, but gave up. It's just an attraction for trivia and people wanting to write in detail about the plot. The JPStalk to me 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hee, you called me sensible. :) But seriously, thank you! I think trimming plot bloat is becoming one of my specialties for better or worse...though really, it should be far shorter even than it currently is. Doniago (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, well, if you're so good at it, you can help me out at Jekyll (TV series), of you want ;) Ironically, half of the article is very good... The JPStalk to me 09:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ta :) The JPStalk to me 22:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did what I could for it without making some serious cuts...which are probably warranted, but I try to leave that to more experienced (or bold, I suppose) editors. Doniago (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Player Piano

Re: revision 310967083 by (talk) rm unsourced--there was no quotes, no speculation, it was centred around a link to another wiki page, that is not unsourced and you purported reason for removing it was entirely unfounded. (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel my edits aren't justified, you're welcome to undo them. Since it's not as though I've removed the material more than once, I don't know why you didn't just do that instead of messaging me. Doniago (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Black Cauldron

Hey there ... can you take a look at the article for The Black Cauldron (film), when you get a moment? It looks like a Bambifan sock got into the article and added a bunch of stuff. I tried to trim it back but this new IP says that what I did was vandalism. Honestly, I'm not sure what the status quo on that article should be at this point. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the user who reverted your edits assumed vandalism, especially given that nothing you removed was sourced, but I've reverted their reversion with a note explaining that you were removing unsourced content, not vandalizing. Doniago (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert!

Hi Doniago. Thanks for removing that rather unhinged (and ungrammatical) utterance from my talk page. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I was actually watching your Talk page already because of the Vlad Tepes stuff. Frankly none of the sources that RabbitHeart(?) added struck me as particularly reliable, but hopefully if they intend for their edits to be taken seriously they'll follow your advice and use the Talk page. Doniago (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


I was wondering when somebody'd do something. I'd rather do a reword myself. I just can't quite think of the right way to word it. In the TV show they'd use phrases like "hard as agricite", but I'm not sure how to express that in sentence form. Basically this usage is kinda like "hard as a rock", but different.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen the show, I just saw horrifying grammar. :) I'm not sure whether that usage is notable enough to merit inclusion, but if you feel it should be there, perhaps something like, "Often used as a basis of comparison (i.e. "hard as agricite")." BTW, next time a link would be helpful, I had to do a search on Agricite to find out WTH we were discussing. :) Doniago (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Box office totals

I thought I did change the access dates, sorry. That said, you should not (and cannot) simply revert the changes. If the dates aren't updated, then check the links to make sure everything's right and update them yourself. Either that or leave them as they are and contact me and I will fix it. But completely reverting valid information (and thus making the info out-of-date and incorrect) is not a proper action, so please don't do that again. I have been updating the box office numbers for Star Trek for many months now, there is no need to revert them just because I forgot to change some access dates, nor are you supposed to. Unless there's some Wikipedia policy I don't know of that permits laziness and pointless reverts. Anyway, from now on, if i forget something in an edit, just let me know and I'll fix it. Don't go reverting valid changes. Thanks in advance. --ThylekShran (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't revert your edit, I -undid- your edit, and said why I was undoing it in my edit summary. Doniago (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Um... since it was only one edit at that time, you speak as though there were a difference. Anyway, it doesn't matter, you still removed valid changes rather than simply contacting me and letting me make those changes or updating the links' access dates yourself. And I know you said why you undid it, that's how I knew why you undid it. Still doesn't make a difference, you don't need to be going around undoing valid edits for stupid reasons. Just sayin'. --ThylekShran (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for using the term "stupid" to describe edits that you don't agree with. Also, in your last edit you once again failed to update the access date. This conversation is over. Please do not respond. Doniago (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must, because you are mistaken. This time, I did update all access dates that were required to be updated (I checked), so I don't know what you're talking about. If you think I have to or that I'm going to change access dates for information I'm not updating, you are sadly mistaken. And yes, the reasoning behind your "undo" was, to be perfectly honest, pretty dumb. You don't "undo" valid changes just because somebody forgot something, you make those changes yourself or, if you're too lazy, you ask the person to make those changes. If Wikipedia promotes laziness and redundancy, then please let me know and I will stand corrected. And yes, now this conversation is over. Thanks for your understanding. --ThylekShran (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


Re this edit with this: "Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content" rationale.
You did the right thing, but for the wrong reason.
The annon is completely correct - the table is rubbish. However, the place for the annon to argue about it is at the table's page, not on the article page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


P —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pennsic Fort

Did none of the sources I listed in the talk page fit your criteria? I did find a news article.Derianlebreton (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about Wikiquette alerts

Can you please link me to the policy you would have violated if you had not sent out a Wikiquette alert against ThylekShran? To me it seemed quite over the top and I'd like to see what policy dictates an alert for this. Thanks. Stargnoc (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy that -requires- one to report another user as far as I'm aware. I felt TylekShran had been incivil to me on my talk page, particularly when he ignored my request to end the discussion. You're welcome to feel my report was over the top, but I was following recommended procedure here, and given that we've resolved the issue between ourselves, it seems to have been an appropriate measure. Given that Wikiquette discussions are informal and non-binding, I fail to see how over-the-top my report could have been in any case. If you would like to recommend an alternative course of action given that I didn't feel I could ignore the situation, I would be happy to entertain it going forward. Doniago (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS' Tag & Assess Drive and Roll Call

Scream 2

May I ask what is the logical reason of reverting this edit? Thanks. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 03:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Including the movie titles is sufficient; there is no need to include release years. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide examples and I will stand corrected. Doniago (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No I don't, just thought you may have known something I didn't. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 03:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry if I was a bit terse in my earlier message. I've never seen release years included, which I would take as tacit consensus that they shouldn't be. You might bring it up as a discussion point at WikiProject Films if you feel strongly about it, though. I did check the infobox doesn't say anything one way or another about including the release year. So I'd say evidence suggests the release year shouldn't be included, but AFAIK there's no explicit policy prohibiting their inclusion. Hope this helps. As I said, if you feel strongly about including them, I'd recommend starting a discussion to get a consensus first. Doniago (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It's really no big deal, but I added it to the talk page here to see what they say. :-) --Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Adam Pascal

I did not make the recent edits on this page, but I'm curious why you tagged it and am willing to help fix it. Thnx. APST martin (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. The article in general really needs more sourcing. For instance, the entire Personal Life section doesn't include citations. Especially for a WP:BLP that's not really kosher. Doniago (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Better? APST martin (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement! I think the first paragraph of the Early Life section could benefit from some references though. Compared to some BLP's I've seen though, this is looking pretty good. Doniago (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film) -- plot length

On the talk page, you might want to state your concerns about this article's plot section getting too long (like I did). Perhaps ask other editors to help keep it from getting too long. IPs are certainly going to keep adding to it, big or small. And there is one editor (Tovojolo) who has edited it the most and keeps adding to it, significantly and not so significantly, though I have noted WP:PLOT to him or her. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I wasn't aware that this had hit the talk page. I don't necessarily -mind- trimming the plot, and I'm sure once the movie's been out a bit longer this won't be as much of an issue, but doing it on consecutive days for hundreds of words does get a bit tedious. :) Cheers! Doniago (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have not thought of this already, you should just save your version of the plot section and add it in as a trade every time for any bloated version of the plot. Unless you feel that may cut out any helpful new additions made by some IPs or registered editors. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be a concern for me, though I suppose if I was feeling particularly ambitious I could compare "my" plot summary to whatever was current at the time and merge as needed. Fun stuff! :) Doniago (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you mind commenting on the talk page again about the length? Some editors feel that it needs another trim. Now that the article is locked from IPs, it is the best time to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Just got back from visiting my folks for vacation, so I have some catching up to do, but I'll see what I can do. Hope you're having a good holiday season! ETA - Just did a trim on the plot (was nice to see it started under 1K) it's down to 773. Under 1K I'm fine with, though I guess under 700 would be ideal...not sure I'd want to be the person making the cuts at that point though...this time around there were "obvious" edits to my mind. Doniago (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Doniago. You have new messages at Tinitrivedi's talk page.
Message added 04:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


thanks for comments on my article on Usha Thorat. Hang on for some time. I'm working on it and will finalise it in next few days as I get a handle on my editing skills shailendra 04:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar - seeing Jake

Hi. I thought you might consider improving one of the sentences you edited,

"Neytiri kills Quaritch and saves Jake, seeing his human form for the first time."

In this form, the "seeing" suggests that it had something to do with the process of saving Jake. I was going to change it but I didn't feel up to it, and you seemed like a pretty good writer. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I don't know if this necessarily works any better, but I've changed it to read-
"Neytiri kills Quaritch and saves Jake. With the attack repelled, Neytiri and Jake reaffirm their love as she sees his human body for the first time."
Doniago (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
That'll work. Regards,--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


Reference your change on the Dogma page. JDJ was not god. God came to Earth, per what the characters say, because he likes to play skee ball. That was one incarnation of god, him in a human male body, essentially...taking over a human body so that god could play skee ball. The Alanis Morisette character at the end of the movie is a second, separate, god character, completely unrelated to the first. To list them as the same character, is incorrect, as even the credits at the end of the movie split the two up. The way it's listed now it makes it appear like Darth Vader, where James Earl Jones and David Prowse did in fact play the same character. The ones here, need to be separated, or explained in greater detail to avoid confusion. (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

God did not "take over" a human body...or at least there's no evidence to support it, that I'm aware of. Now if you'd like to say something like "An avatar of God" or "God's mortal incarnation", I'm fine with that. BTW, this would be more appropriate for discussion on the film page itself. Doniago (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I'll copy and paste it over there. The way I understood the movie, was that the angels, the metatron, Azrael, and God all took a human form. I believe the metatron actually say something about god in human form during the movie. Either way, there were two separate versions of "God" shown in the film. "Taking over," similar to what used to happen in the TV show "Joan of Arcadia" wasn't what I meant, essentially I meant that God was taking a human form, whether that was a body of an already existing person, or a wholly new person, is unknown. I stand by my edit of separating the two, as I mentioned in my previous post, putting them together makes it appear like they were playing the same character, when there were in fact, two wholly separate characters. (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think if you say "taking on human form" rather than "taking over" you should be fine. Taking over implies possession (like a ghost possessing a person), which wasn't my interpretation of what occurs in the film. Doniago (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Army Of Darkness links

You removed my fansite link from the links section of the 'Army Of Darkness' entry because fansites are inappropriate EL's, If this is a hard rule then I'm happy to abide by that, but another fansite; has been linked to twice in the same list; the first entry as an official site (which it isn't, it's a fansite) then again further down the list.

I don't want removed, just to point out the disparity as we're both fansites. My site does cover Army Of Darkness in far greater detail than the Wikipedia entry, and would seem a decent EL candidate for additional reading.

EvilDeadChainsaws (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. My understanding is fansites of any sort generally shouldn't be included as external links. The policy is discussed at WP:EL. I'd encourage you to review that, and if you feel your site and/or the other sites does/doesn't meet the criteria to make appropriate changes.
On a sidenote, it's always going to seem questionable if someone's posting a link to their own site. The prevailing feeling is that if a site is notable for inclusion then someone who -isn't- affiliated with the site will at some point link to it. Regards. Doniago (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ok well going by the WP:EL page, it states;
Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
I would say my site falls squarely into that criteria. It does contain further research and goes into far greater detail than the Wikipedia entry. I'm not sure the fact that it is by definition a fansite should be the sole factor that affects it's inclusion one way or the other. I could indeed wait for someone else to post the link, or even ask someone unconnected with the site to post it, but again I can't see any point if the end result is the same. I do appreciate that if everyone who runs a fansite of any description, swamps each Wikipedia page with links then obviously that would not be a good thing, but I've really tried to make my site the most comprehensive ever, covering far more points in much greater detail than any previous or current fan or offical website, and it's inclusion as further reading would suit us both.
EvilDeadChainsaws (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think you'll hit a problem with #11 under "Links normally to be avoided"- Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)
Additionally, Advertising and conflicts of interest states line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide.. Regards. Doniago (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gamma World Seventh Edition Edits

It looks like the content regarding the new Gamma World product, which isn't due until October 19, 2010, has made its way on to the history section of that article. I have suggested a temporary lockout to keep this from going back and forth from inclusion to deletion. Clearly, there aren't any reliable citations to justify it's permenant inclusion yet. Xin Jing (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's the same editor adding the material in a short span of time you might want to give them a warning as described under WP:EW. If it's different editors, then things get more complicated. Either way, I appreciate that you don't want to add the text to the body of the article without reliable sourcing! Doniago (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


I didn't vandalize Not All Dogs Go to Heaven, so why did you revert my edit? Is it because you get awards after s many edits? NitroMan3941 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please start a new section when creating a new topic on someone's talk page. Secondly, "idiotic" is hardly an encyclopedic term, and it wasn't necessary to convey an understanding of the plot. Hence, reverted. Thirdly, please sign your posts by including four tildes(~) at the end of them. I'll assume the question about awards after x number of edits was meant in jest. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You sound so impressive, i bet all your friends are impressed on how intelligent you sound telling me how to do things. It happend on accident as i thought i had titled the header but didn't, so you wasted time complaining about it. If "idiotic" is not encyclopedic enough for you; Is irresponcible? Or will you revert that aswell to help you reach your goal of being commemorated for such-and-such a number of edits? Why doesn't it help in understanding the plot? Is it smart to walk around with the mumps wherever you are? It's interesting you come off as the snippy intellectual type yet watch Family Guy, possibly moreso than i. NitroMan3941 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I only try to help but maybe i'm just not helpful around here. NitroMan3941 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Beyond saying I really don't appreciate the way you addressed me in your first paragraph (I deliberately struck out my comments because I thought you -didn't- know those things until I saw that you'd made edits, so was trying to be helpful...then when I saw you'd edited yourself I did a strike-out), my advice would be to avoid words like "idiotic", which don't really sound like something you'd read in an encyclopedia, and maybe to ask yourself, before you make changes, whether they're "needed" in order to improve the article. Also try not to take undos or reverts too happens all the time. The better editors provide some sort of explanation, and you should always feel as though you can ask an editor why they didn't approve of your changes. At the same time though, if you don't know why they made a change, it's best to assume that they did whatever they did for a good reason whenever possible. I might suggest reading WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL if you're planning to speak to other editors the way you spoke to me, especially since this is about a one-word edit to an article. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast list

I've been converting all my film article cast bullets to prose. It looks better and generally flows a little better, in my opinion. There's nothing in the WP:MOS about cast lists, and the WP:FILM guidelines explicitly say where possible it should be "well-written prose". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I am a fan of bullet points or separate paragraphs to segregate information about actors. Doniago (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

About the archive section of Talk:Asperger syndrome

Probably we together reverted the archive section on the mentioned article. It resulted multiple copy of same discussion on the archive. Could you please have a look there and delete the additional one? I am leaving it onto you. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 17:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, I got it. You archived a different section. It's fine now. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 17:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yah. There's the initial discussion which wasn't settling anything, than the formal merge discussion. Both were archived. It will be nice when the trolling tapers off...until 2013 or so I suppose, heh. Thanks for your help! Doniago (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You are most welcome. By the way, did you notice User:Zengar Zombolt identified your edit as vandalism? He actually opened the archived merger discussion (that you restored) and mentioned in the edit summary that it was a vandalism! I am going to restore it again now. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
They're also on a two-week vacation currently. Oddly, due to disruptive editing. (smirk) Doniago (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek 2009 Film Plot Summary

I saw that you reverted my edit of the plot tag. Personally, I think it could be made shorter (by maybe 50-100 words, I agree it doesn't need much) just by cleaning up the word usage; there are bits that come off a bit rambling to me. I'd like to give it a go in spite of your general disagreement with that assessment. However, if you don't think I should bother at all, I'd like to hear any thoughts you have since you clearly have more experience with the films section here. Thanks in advance. Millahnna (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, you're welcome to take a stab at it! :) I just didn't feel it merited a Plot tag given the current word-count isn't too obnoxious. If you think you can clean it up, I say go for it! Doniago (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Stellar. Do you have that page on your watch list? I was thinking I'd play with it in my Sandbox when I get that far down my list, and then ask a few more experienced editors to check more work. But if it's on your list and my changes aren't too severe I'll just do it on the page, since you'll see it anyway. Millahnna (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I do have it on my watch list. I think editing the article directly should be fine...if you're concerned about doing multiple saves you could do a Show Preview and look over your work before saving. If people disagree with your change they'll either undo or make some of their own, but you can always refer to the History to retrieve your copy at that point. Doniago (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


How do I talk with you and how do I see the sandbox? It only shows me a bunch of numbers. I'm concerned about the errors published about my grandfathers, in particular, One Horn who is mistakenly called Lone Horn. Chief Lone Horn was my adopted grandpa by Hunka ceremony. One Horn and Lone Horn are not the same person although they have been confused. I'm trying to correct this information. I speak fluent Lakota and it is obvious that the name is incorrect. A quick Google will show you that One Horn was indeed painted by Caitlin... not Lone Horn. Please email me at Calvinspottedelk (yahoo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Animal Farm

Hey! Why did you delete my commentary and proposed edits on this page? (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Because you provided no edit summary or other explanation for your edits, and your additions did not seem to be aimed at improving the article. If I acted in error you are welcome to re-add your material, but I would recommend explaining why you are inserting it. Additionally, your material under "The Cat" is unsourced original research and would be inappropriate for inclusion. Regards. Doniago (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
They were merely suggestions on minor misspellings and all that, and the semiprotection prevents me from directly editing it and mentions that i should merely suggest these edits on the talk page. As to the original research, I simply added a headline and advised some content, like my example, be placed under the cat. I also added [citation needed] to show that my comments are not cited yet. And what kind of edit summary is needed, anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, "suggest possible edits" might have been good, along with the explanation you just provided above. I think people are inherently likely to be more suspicious of edits when there's no explanation as to why they're being made. I don't believe anything you said on the Talk page actually indicated that you were submitting them as suggestions either, much less why (I didn't realize the article was semi-protected). If you don't have a source to begin with, I'd recommend not including the information in the first place...better to find a source and suggest the information when it can be provided, IMO. In any case, it sounds like you meant well, so I apologize if I overreacted. You're welcome to reinsert your material, but again, I'd recommend providing a bit of context so other editors know your intentions. Regards. Doniago (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for Redirect Help

Lol, no worries... even I miss things like that sometimes. Wasn't only declining due to the age alone but also the redirect being plausible and understandable, even though I don't really think it's needed personally. Either way, I figured it might be a better idea to suggest sending it to CFD to see what others thought. =) Cheers :) --slakrtalk / 16:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Krypton

Thank you for your comment on my addition to Krypton (comics). One of my interests is uncovering the sources of names and such, ever since I was really young. I am not sure as to whether or not there is actually a source for the name; most discussions of Superman just say he is from Krypton and launch into the story (or at least that is what happened on the search I just did). I know that it seemed really, really obvious to me the minute I saw the periodic chart of the elements in science class when I was a kid – indeed, Jerry Siegel or whoever came up with the idea would be hard-pressed to come up with some other source IMHO. In the same way, it was really, really obvious to me that the name of the Star Trek planet Vulcan is taken from the hypothetical planet Vulcan inside the orbit of Mercury (no one called me out on that one, but the reference seems to have been dropped).

Now, those "obvious" things don't always work out; I was certain that the Muppets characters Bert and Ernie were taken from two minor characters in the movie It's a Wonderful Life, and that turned out not to be the case; however, there was a discussion in the article that Jim Henson just came with those names and didn't realize that there was a connection to that movie. When I wrote up the expanded section on Stone Poneys, it seemed obvious to me that the night club the Stone Pony was named after the band once I noticed on a trip there years ago that the club was founded in 1974, the same year that Linda Ronstadt's breakthrough album Heart Like a Wheel came out. Turned out, the club was founded 9 months before the album was released, though her one of her hit songs "Silver Threads and Golden Needles" was current. The owners of the club claimed that the name came to one of them in a dream, but I have a short section in both articles showing the possible connection.

I would like to ask you to revert the reference with a qualifier such as "evidently"; in my mind, a source that the name came from somewhere other than the name of the gas would be more called for than trying to dig up someone admitting what I consider to be the unmistakable source of the name. I think there is a tendency for Wikipedia articles to be a little too self-contained – that is, that discussions of Krypton are entirely contained within the Superman universe, with no reference to the outside world. I am evidently one of several people who has tried unsuccessfully to note the rather remarkable fact that the film Predator has among its cast two future governors: Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura; however, the keepers of the article insist that that has nothing to do with the movie. I had my share of struggles with other Wikipedians early on, and I am not really interested in going to the mat on this one, that's for sure; but I did want you to know my feelings on the matter. Shocking Blue (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, wasn't expecting this level of feedback. :)
I hate to sound like a stick in the mud, but unless there is a source stating that the namers of Krypton had the element in mind, I'm really not comfortable reinserting this information myself. I wouldn't oppose you doing so, though perhaps with a citation needed tag? Alternately maybe this would be a good topic for the Talk page? Maybe someone who's monitoring the article does have a source.
When it comes down to it, my feeling is that Wikipedia has a knack for including far too much information without any indication as to where the information originated...if the goal is for this site to serve as an encyclopedia, but one that anyone can edit, then I feel people should know where people are obtaining the information that is being included here.
Sorry if I'm being somewhat brief and unsatisfactory. Again, I feel you're welcome to reinsert the information, but I also feel (but won't make an issue of it) that a citation needed tag should be included if you opt to re-include it. I definitely appreciate that you came to me with your concerns, and I hope you can understand my perspective on the matter. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. I can understand where you are coming from, and I have definitely read articles where I was wondering where all of that was coming from. I have tried not to impose my own ideas on things on Wikipedia, although as you can see, I certainly have them. :-) One of my favorite things about Wikipedia is the fact that it is a cooperative effort among a lot of people, and I consider the result to be more reliable than the opinion of any one expert that could be named. I like your idea about putting it in the talk section, and I think that is what I will do. Shocking Blue (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Glad we were able to work this out! Doniago (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

moon men

i will compromise if the word person can be changed to human, or astronaut. Until then.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC) This is what the article's talk page is for, not mine. And it's already been discussed, and using sockpuppets to change articles because you don't like the consensus is poor form at its finest. Doniago (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Call it what you will. The Talk page never considered anything but their own ideas and never offered a compromise. I would like to open up dialog if some kind of consensus can be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gayle, you lost the ability to help shape consensus when you decided to resort to sockpuppetry to force your opinion on everyone else. Considering the disruption you have caused, I doubt anyone on Wikipedia would be willing to even hear you out now. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2010

When this was discussed it was completely one sided. Now I don't mind being called Gayle Nuffer. I actually think its funny that you think I am that user. I don't want to declare war here. I think we can come to a civil agreement. Can I call a truce? Can some consensus be made? I think there is a better word than just "people or person". The ball is in your court.

Please do not speak to me further. I do not wish to address this topic in any way. If you seek consensus on a subject, my Talk page is not the place for it. Thank you for your consideration. Doniago (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Where then should I bring it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Skull Island#2005 Remake

Hi. I'm an administrator working at the copyright problems board. I need some more information from you, please, regarding your copyright concerns in this section. I do not myself have access to the book The World of Kong: A Natural History of Skull Island (King Kong), but a contributor I located who does could not identify an issue. Can you please clarify your copyright concerns with that material? For example, it would be helpful if you could identify specific page numbers of replicated text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To be certain, I don't own the book and can't provide any specific information, but the entire content of that section appeared to be listings of species that the book details, and given the wealth of material it would not appear to constitute "fair use".
If the feeling is that the material's acceptable even though it's basically a digest of the book, I'm not going to argue with that or anything, but I did think it merited concern. Doniago (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Well, you labeled List of animals from "King Kong" (2005 remake) as for G12 deletion as a "blatant copyright violation" of that same book. How did you know that the article was an unambiguous copyright infringement? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I create an edit conflict here. :) I value copyright work, and I appreciate your considering and taking the time to address these concerns. If your concern is that the contents are a derivative work, that wouldn't be a G12 criteria, but the copyright problems tag you used on Skull Island would be very appropriate. However, you do need to give some details. There are different issues at work in a straightforward copy/paste than an unauthorized derivative, which is obviously a bit more subjective. Your concerns could be completely valid there, but the latter situation is far more likely to happen in good faith and the contributor who creates the problem certainly needs a full explanation to prevent future problems created unwittingly. G12 should be used when content has been visibly copied & pasted. In terms of derivative, I have not seen the film; are the animals in the list truly present in the film, or were they created for that book, do you know? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there...I labeled the original page as a G12 because it appeared to be a listing of the animals taken essentially verbatim from the book, with little actual analysis of the book or the creatures. At the time I assumed the page would be reviewed to ensure the article met the appropriate criteria before any strong action was taken.
I have seen the film, and the article text features significantly more information about the creatures than is evident from the film...I believe it also mentions creatures that don't appear in the film itself (though to be fair, some of them do not have a great deal of screen time and could be overlooked). If there was some sort of critical analysis or behind-the-scenes information, that would be one thing, and I'd support that. However, while the text may not be strictly cut-and-paste, in my opinion it's essentially a Cliff's Notes version of the book and, if not inappropriate for copyright infringement, it would seem to be inappropriate on the grounds of being simply a list of creatures that's in-universe and provides no real-world context.
I do apologize if I jumped the gun on labeling it copyright infringement, though again, my understanding was that I was bringing it to the table as a potential issue, not explicitly calling it infringement. Thank you for your time. Doniago (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I don't mean to suggest there was anything inappropriate about your bringing up your concerns; on the contrary, just looking for more information so we can determine how best to handle it. You're right that in-universe material can be derivative. A JK Rowling bestiary was found to be a copyright infringement of the Harry Potter universe for precisely that reason. As far as the evaluation of the other article, unfortunately, the book is hard to access. :/ I think it's possible that the administrator who deleted the article on G12 may have just taken your word for it. I've been trying to talk to him about the book for almost two weeks because of the WP:CP listing, and so far I haven't gotten a response from him. I do think that the {{copyvio}} approach is better for more ambiguous situations. Anyway, now that I know the scope of your concern, I'll look into it from that angle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Heck, if I took the wrong approach I'd want to know it myself, so I could better handle future situations. :) The JK Rowling bestiary is a good analog for the material I marked, actually...not that I ever read the bestiary, but both situations seem to essentially be creature listings written largely or entirely in-universe based on original texts, with little or no real-world context. Not sure what to say about the other Admin. possibly having taken my word for it rather than investigating...I actually thought about applying for adminship at one point, but the whole application process struck me as rather intimidating, and I wasn't sure how being an admin would significantly increase my ability to improve the quality of WP. I'm also not sure I really make the kinds of contributions that lend one to being a good admin, as usually I'm focusing on clean-up rather than adding material or larger contributions. In any case, please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Doniago (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, and, yes, it is kind of a grueling process. But sometimes the tools do come in handy in clean-up work, if you ever decide to brave it. :) Even though some people frown on it, I think if I were facing the possibility now, I'd probably go for coaching. Nothing wrong with learning the ropes from somebody with experience at it, at least so long as they're good at the job. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the revert; I appreciate it! — Kralizec! (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I just wish that Sockmaster would let the whole Moon Man thing die already...the IP who spoke up above was the same one who vandalized you. Doniago (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If only we could convince Gayle to take up a more productive hobby. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


It is mentioned on the Disney Afternoon page, as well as being the only remaining TDA show on the main schedule of Disney XD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Currently, the only Disney Afternoon show which is airing in the U.S. is Gargoyles, which continues to air on Toon Disney's replacement Disney XD." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Then feel free to include the information -with sourcing- (another WP page doesn't count as a reliable source, so that it can be verified. Also, please start a new section if you're going to bring up something new on my talk page, rather than dropping it into an existing section. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've just gone through and removed a great deal of unsourced and original research information from that article, as it was tagged for such issues for over a year. Doniago (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A message from Movieman2099

First of all, its 2012 not 2010. And second, you can change the plot as much as you like, but please keep the DVD Alternate Ending. I just made the plot have more detail and not just simple like,"Gorden is killed." Thats crap! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieman2099 (talkcontribs) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not crap; that's a plot summary. As Doniago said, you need to read the WP guidelines for plot summaries, specifically as they apply to films. Scene by scene breakdowns are not required, or needed and will continue to be reverted. DVD alternate generally belong in sections about home media releases, not the plot summary. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that covers everything I might have said rather well. Though I might add that when a counterargument uses words such as "crap", I tend not to consider it very credible. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen, we were at war with 2012 plot, and I am sorry. Lets just forget about it. Okay? talk 3:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieman2099 (talkcontribs)

I have no problem with that. My only concerns were the length of the plot summary and that it contained a lot of detail that probably shouldn't be included per WP guidelines. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Goonies

Hi Doniago, I understand that you reverted my 'minor' edit, which was an external link (interwiki) to the Turkish Wikipedia. Namely, about the movie The Goonies. In Turkey, The Goonies went to market under the name "Define Avcıları" (means 'treaure hunters'). Before reverting the edit, you should have checked the link first. Now I'm re editing the interwiki link. Regards.-- (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the oversight. Doniago (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

David Sherlock - Chapmans Ashes

I re-added the bit about Graham's ashes being scattered on Snowdon. David Sherlock is my Uncle and told me about it. Other than that I don't know how else to prove it's true! It just is. So if somebody can tell me how better I should write it then please let me know. Thanks. Please also see Discussion Page on David Sherlock for similar comment Ssherlock (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you really should review WP:PRIMARY. If the information hasn't been published in a reliable source then it really isn't appropriate for inclusion. The standard for inclusion in WP is verifiability, not truth. I'm sorry, but unless the material can be sourced, my feeling is that it should be removed. Doniago (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Poseidon Adventure (2005 film)‎

The page has sources, they cover the information on the page. The template placed on the page does not belong there as it is factually incorrect. There are ones out there covering the lack of references, unfortunately it is not the one placed on the page, hence it was removed.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If the page has sources, why are there no sources listed on the page? Doniago (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean (attraction)

Hello. I saw that you reverted my edit on the page about the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction at Disneyland. I just want to say that I was not trying or intending to vandalize the page, and was merely fixing a spelling mistake. I hope you understand. Regards, TuneyLoon 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just checked the edit history, and frankly I have no idea what I was on when I reverted your changes. I took the liberty of deleting my warning off your Talk page and restored your changes. Deepest Apologies! Doniago (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Doniago/Archive 4".