| Revision as of 13:41, 22 June 2012 editDoniago (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers113,564 editsm Reverted edits by 68.239.177.235 (talk) to last version by SineBot duly noted, now leave me alone← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:56, 22 June 2012 edit undo68.239.177.235 (talk) →Showing the ease of editing to A level studentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 461: | Line 461: | ||
| The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:V (hey a source wow (yes sarcasm)): It '''must be possible''' (possible means that you don't actually have to just that you can) to attribute all information in Misplaced Pages to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. 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'''. | The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:V (hey a source wow (yes sarcasm)): It '''must be possible''' (possible means that you don't actually have to just that you can) to attribute all information in Misplaced Pages to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. 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'''. | ||
| (bold and parenthesis added by me). What that means in simpler terms, is sources are NOT necessary, just helpful and if you don't include a source be prepared to be challenged. Challenged means someone asking for a source or questioning the reliability of the statement. IT IS '''NOT''' A REASON TO DELETE AN ENTRY. If you want to talk harassment, fine lets talk harassment. Stop deleting other peoples works. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | (bold and parenthesis added by me). What that means in simpler terms, is sources are NOT necessary, just helpful and if you don't include a source be prepared to be challenged. Challenged means someone asking for a source or questioning the reliability of the statement. IT IS '''NOT''' A REASON TO DELETE AN ENTRY. If you want to talk harassment, fine lets talk harassment. Stop deleting other peoples works. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| The following is what people add BEFORE deleting entries: Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. | |||
| Notice the challenge comes first. | |||
| Then there is the in article citation needed request. Try doing those before deleting other people's work. | |||
Revision as of 13:56, 22 June 2012
 | Welcome to my Talk page. Please note the following-
|
Merry Christmas
MayhemMario is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You are incorrect, unless it has been changed recently
Since an IP doesn't 'own' their talk page, they cannot remove their own warnings regardless of their editing restrictions. However, I'm not going to edit war with you to restore them. I'm just going to block the IP on sight the next time they step out of line. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BLANKING appears to me to be saying that IP editors are free to remove warning messages (though not active block messages), though perhaps I missed something? Anyway, I agree that if they do act up again a block would be reasonable. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, looks like Luna Santin added the part about IPs in 2008 (!). So perhaps they are allowed. I certainly wouldn't block them for removing the warnings, but at the same time I'm usually inclined to restore them once after the blanking. Syrthiss (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, warning-removal is certainly not a blockable offense AFAIK, but I'll be the first to say that it sometimes looks like an editor (IP or otherwise) is trying to hide the fact that they received a warning. Now if they were actually modifying the warning, that would be a different matter, since that would constitute refactoring someone's words, which is a no-no (even if their words came from a template). Doniago (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, looks like Luna Santin added the part about IPs in 2008 (!). So perhaps they are allowed. I certainly wouldn't block them for removing the warnings, but at the same time I'm usually inclined to restore them once after the blanking. Syrthiss (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Christine (novel)
I re-revised the edit you reverted, rationale is on the article's talk page. What do you think? Ellsworth (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ellsworth, thanks for getting in touch. No problem with your edits per se this time around, but I did feel the synopsis was overly-long in general and have trimmed it by about 100 words. While there aren't specific word count guidelines for novels, in this case the film guideline of 400-700 words seemed appropriate; after my cuts the synopsis is still almost 800 words, but I think that's okay. I wouldn't mind if it was longer as long as the additions are material that is critical to understanding the plot. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Delta PHX-CVG
The flight is no longer bookable on delta.com. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. I'd much prefer an actual source be provided (press release?), but I won't press the matter, though I'd understand if someone else did. Doniago (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Wes Anderson page Vandalism
Doniago: the Wes Anderson page vandalism is still going on. How do we proceed to get the name portion of his page locked? please see below our exchange from November 2010, these purposefully malevolent changes have serious repercussions as they end up in the press. Please help and please advise.
Discussion from November 2010:
Wes Anderson page is constantly vandalized by user with IP addresses in Illinois (75.57.191.220)(75.57.175.50)(71.201.120.78) changing middle name to "Mortimer" this needs to be stopped as is not factual information. What more can be done than just constantly "reverting" the info back?81.64.38.94 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Warn them, as a start. If they keep it up they'll eventually get blocked. WP:3RR may also be applicable. If you believe the 3 IP's are definitely related, you may want to look into WP:SOCK as well. As it's just a minor vandalism I wouldn't get too riled up over it, just make sure the edit's being undone and the IP's getting incremental warnings. Eventually they'll get tagged for it one way or another. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks, this has been going on for over a year. The IP addresses are hardly ever the same. I represent the living person in question and this false information is finding it's way into press articles and even a recent book, I think we are right to be "riled up" as this is ongoing and is a cause of distress for the person in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.38.94 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the problem with an encyclopedia that anyone's allowed to edit is that anyone's allowed to edit it. You could try asking for page protection, but if you're going to do that you should be prepared to prove that this same vandalism has been occurring repeatedly from multiple IP editors for a prolonged period of time. I'm not sure how difficult it is to get this protection, objectively speaking. As for it showing up elsewhere, it's rather unfortunate that anyone would consider unsourced material on Misplaced Pages to be reliable...I certainly don't. Please feel free to come to me with any other questions/concerns. (smile) Doniago (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 82.123.232.70 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the page history I only saw one recent instance of this possible vandalism, and it was recent enough that any editor could undo it, which kind of makes me wonder why you didn't do so yourself? I have reverted the edit and given the IP a warning about adding unsourced material, which is something you could also do yourself. If the same IP continues to add unsourced information they should receive appropriate warnings and perhaps be blocked. If multiple IPs begin adding the same information repeatedly, I would request that the page be protected at WP:RFPP, but one incident after several months of quiet doesn't meet the qualifications for protection. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:09, 5 June 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 02:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Michael Scott
I removed the section, because it quotes an article from 2006. It's not relevant. I didn't know I had to specify on the talk page, but will do some from now on, and will be removing it again. 71.59.181.111 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- No need to note it on the Talk page, just make sure you provide an edit summary when you remove it. Thanks for clearing things up! Doniago (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Rescue 911
I want Rescue 911 to be blocked from any unregistered users. Someone has been using different IP address has been keep on posting a story about one of the deaths in an unaired episode that is never proven that it was filmed or the event of it occured. So please, tell someone on wikipedia to block that page from unregistered users. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- You can ask for protection at WP:RFPP. Doniago (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Goth talk page undo
Hi Doniago
Having reviewed what I actually wrote, I can see why you regarded it as discussion of the topic rather than development of the article.
However, if I may quote in my own defence from my second sentence: "I don't consider myself competent to add anything to the article, but would like to request one or more of those who could, to tell us something more about Goth psychology, or a belief system...."
In other words my contribution to the talk page was *intended* to be a request for expansion of the article in a specific area. I then went on to suggest some possible focus areas, with the idea of clarifying my request by giving examples.
Please advise whether you think I should:
- just forget it
- rewrite the request / suggestion in a clearer (and shorter) form
- leave it to you to change
- revert your undo
Regards
David FLXD (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi David, thanks for getting in touch. I'd recommend restating your concerns to make it more clear how you think the article should be changed/expanded, rather than reflecting on your own (or "our") specific interests. In other words, rather than stating "I'm curious about..." say "I think the article could benefit from more information about..." or "Is there information about x that could be added to the article? I think this would be useful." In essence, make your concerns about benefitting the article rather than individuals. That being said, if you're not invested in the article itself, it may not be worth pursuing...it's possible that editors may point you to sources and invite you to add the information yourself. Some editors get prickly if they think that others are asking them to do work but aren't willing to contribute themselves. Hope this helps, and thaks again for coming to me with your concerns! Doniago (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - will make a short, clear suggestion and leave it at that. I am perfectly happy to make a contribution, but as a non-Goth don't feel that I have the insight to answer my own questions! David FLXD (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know that feeling! Glad I could be of assistance! :) Doniago (talk) 12:23, 20 June 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 00:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Unsigned -->
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)
- No promises, as I've got a few other items on my to-do list, but I'll keep it in mind. Pleasure collaborating with you. :) Doniago (talk) 15:25, 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 Misplaced Pages:School and university projects and/or Misplaced Pages: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)
I was not commenting on the person (sensitive much?- yes that was a personal comment). I was commenting on the fact that you seem to change a lot of people's edits without considering ANYTHING besides whether it has a source or not. Get a life (yes another personal attack) and take your own advise... take a breath and choll out. You are not the be all end all of what needs a source. Things that are obvious, easily proven false, not likely to be challenged, and other such additions DO NOT NEED SOURCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:V (hey a source wow (yes sarcasm)): It must be possible (possible means that you don't actually have to just that you can) to attribute all information in Misplaced Pages to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. 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. (bold and parenthesis added by me). What that means in simpler terms, is sources are NOT necessary, just helpful and if you don't include a source be prepared to be challenged. Challenged means someone asking for a source or questioning the reliability of the statement. IT IS NOT A REASON TO DELETE AN ENTRY. If you want to talk harassment, fine lets talk harassment. Stop deleting other peoples works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.177.235 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The following is what people add BEFORE deleting entries: Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Notice the challenge comes first.
Then there is the in article citation needed request. Try doing those before deleting other people's work.