This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 20 June 2012 (Signing comment by Kensternation - "→Stop summarily deleting other people's work: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:48, 20 June 2012 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by Kensternation - "→Stop summarily deleting other people's work: new section")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 | 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.
Reversion of edited Velgarth page.
I'm more than a bit confused here, so perhaps you can explain --and justify-- your decision to remove my changes to the "Basilisk" section and revert it back to its former condition. The rationale that you have used --unsourced, overdetailed and non-encyclopedic-- strikes me as, well, unfounded. To say the least. Let's see, the entry for "Cold Drake" uses 803 words, and reads like a short story. But that's acceptable? While the current --and reverted-- section for Basilisk ignores three-quarters of the description of the creature.
But that's acceptable and appropriate, eh? Because the entry is 100% accurate to the books, that makes it "unsourced", and because a 173 word description renders it "overdetailed" (especially compared to a 803 one).
I don't often edit Wiki articles, and only do so if I feel I'm actually making a correction and/or contribution. So I stand in awe of your decision, and eagerly wait with bated breath for your explanation regarding the decision to delete my edit.
Masterius2011 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Masterius
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - that I edited your content and not other content within the article is in no way a comment as to whether that other content is appropriate for inclusion. Similarly, that material is included in a Misplaced Pages article should not be used to justify the addition of further material, as it could be that the original material is inappropriate for inclusion.
- If the information you added is accurate to the books, then source it to the books.
- Also, it appears that you may be adopting an unnecessarily abrasive tone in your final comments. I am not certain what you would wish to accomplish by doing so, but I would certainly be curious to find out. Doniago (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure why you brought the matter here if you were going to raise it at the article's Talk page almost simultaneously. I imagine it would be best to continue any discussion there, however. Doniago (talk) 20:36, 18 May 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) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
Civility is as civility does- to paraphrase Forrest Gump. It is NOT civil to delete someone else's work summarily. Ask for a source, if the person doesn't respond within a certain amount of time, then maybe consider deleting it. Or better yet, if you are so gung ho on sources... find the source yourself. (The paraphrase is from the movie Forrest Gump for your source.
Do you actually check sources or just delete anything that doesn't have a source? You still haven't answered my question. I can see you sitting there refreshing the Wiki recent updates page and instantly rubbing your hands together checking each one for sources. Not caring if the sources cited are real or accurate. Get over it. As for the ANI: It must be possible 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 added by me) That means if something is not likely to be challenged because it is either obvious or easily verifiable or just not worthy of challenge, DOES NOT NEED A SOURCE. Once again... get over it and get a life. And I know you sit there or the recent page, because the sentence before mine was also unsourced, but you did not delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Try taking your own advice. CHILLOUT before deciding to delete someone else's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Stop summarily deleting other people's work
Civility is as civility does- to paraphrase Forrest Gump. It is NOT civil to delete someone else's work summarily. Ask for a source, if the person doesn't respond within a certain amount of time, then maybe consider deleting it. Or better yet, if you are so gung ho on sources... find the source yourself. (The paraphrase is from the movie Forrest Gump for your source.
Do you actually check sources or just delete anything that doesn't have a source? You still haven't answered my question. I can see you sitting there refreshing the Wiki recent updates page and instantly rubbing your hands together checking each one for sources. Not caring if the sources cited are real or accurate. Get over it. As for the ANI: It must be possible 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 added by me) That means if something is not likely to be challenged because it is either obvious or easily verifiable or just not worthy of challenge, DOES NOT NEED A SOURCE. Once again... get over it and get a life. And I know you sit there or the recent page, because the sentence before mine was also unsourced, but you did not delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Try taking your own advice. CHILLOUT before deciding to delete someone else's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)