User talk:Doniago

Moon men

Good catch [1]! — Kralizec! (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! They weren't particularly subtle though. :) Doniago (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dysprod1975

I don't think this user is User:Timmy Polo. (1) The account was created in 2006, while Timmy started editing in 2009 as an IP. (2) Timmy only edits plot summaries, this user does more. (3) Timmy is about 18 years old, and judging from this user's username, Dysprod1975 is about 35. (4) No {{helpme}} requests on the user's talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the user had been active quite a while back after I suggested on their Talk page that they review the plot summary guidelines. I agree they're probably not a sock; hopefully they'll review policy and all will be well. Doniago (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I have watchlisted every article Timmy Polo has ever edited, so when he comes back, his return will be short-lived. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Midori (web browser) Daisuke Suzuki Harry Harris (director) Lucy Harris Loren Bouchard Jim Bernstein Glenn McQueen Del Harris (squash player) 99 and 44/100% Dead Sable Island Pony Gail Katz Mike Barker (producer) Art Stevens Monster by Mistake Three Mounted Men Edward Harris (ornithologist) Ted Griffin The Man Who Sued God Donald Fullilove

Cleanup Gaza flotilla raid Dan Harris Harris Bank Merge Harry die strandloper Walt Disney Gold Classic Collection Tahawus, New York Add Sources Moon Over Isla Island Daddy Queerest Iron Man 2 Wikify Percy Jackson & the Olympians The Chinese Foundation Secondary School Gay Bride of Frankenstein Expand Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (video game) 100 A.D. The Cleveland Show (season 2)

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper

Just so you know, I didn't miss that note and I am aware that not every song on the album fits into psychedelic rock, hence why I added psychedelic rock alongside rock in the infobox and didn't replace rock with psychedelic rock. A large portion of the songs on the album are in fact psychedelic rock songs and the article even describes it as "a defining album in the emerging psychedelic rock style", so I think that psychedelic rock at least deserves to be listed alongside rock in the infobox, just like in the article on Revolver (not every song on that album fits into psychedelic rock either). I would also appriciate it if you cut the wise cracks in the edit summaries. Thanks. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on the article's Talk page regarding this. If you feel psychedelic rock should be included you should discuss it there before re-adding. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't mean to make you think that I was vandalizing the article. --John of Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Doniago (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Topher Grace and sourcing

Hi, Doniago, I started a discussion on the issues raised by your and my edits on BLPN here, in case you want to add your three cents (one more than what mine is worth).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification! Doniago (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's the least I could do if I'm going to abuse you (smile) in public. More seriously, I think these kinds of issues need airing out, although I don't really hope for any consensus. In other forums, I've found very experienced editors who believe that you have to source everything, whereas others believe that sourcing is required only if the material is contentious. I guess I fall somewhere in between those two positions (the exercise of judgment as I said on BLPN), but I also view the issue from a practical perspective, which is why I mentioned the "logical extreme" of the sourcing everything position. Anyway, we'll see how many people contribute to the discussion and what they say.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree on all counts. I think editors tend to (not necessarily consciously) be more forgiving when it's information they -know- is true as well...I know I'm less likely to tag/delete something if I have no reason to question it. FWIW if the article hadn't been previously tagged I would have tagged rather than deleted, since I'll be the first to admit the info I removed wasn't particularly contentious. Doniago (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The part about the previous tag was my fault. When I posted to BLPN, I failed to notice the tag, or I wouldn't have included the parenthetical about the citation needed tag. You defended yourself very well on that point, but my apologies for saying it in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem! (smile)

I apologize; I hate it when other editors jump to conclusions, and I should have checked the article history before assuming that your deletion was of untagged material. (Nothing personal was intended, as I did not know who removed the material when I made my comment.) THF (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

THF, as I said above, it's really my fault, not yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We're cool. :) Doniago (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek Deep Space 9

Hello Doniago, regarding this edit the information you removed is on page 837 of the The Star Trek Encyclopedia written by Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda. It does verify that information. I shall readd it and cite the source. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry if I edited in error! Thanks for the catch! Doniago (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Fear of a Bot Planet

You are being ridiculous about this. There is no possible way to document the intention of the show's producers short of their having been interviewed on every single cultural reference they ever used. This is proven by the fact that numerous other episodes in this and other series have completely non-cited entries in their respective "Cultural Reference" sections. So, either let the revision stand, or strip them out of every other show's episode entry.

Boobookf1 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Boobookf1

You're right, the uncited entries in the other articles should be removed. I've been tagging them and removing them as I've found them. If you still feel your edits are appropriate bring it up on the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in. Doniago (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You missed my point. I don't think they should be removed. As per Wikipedia's instructions on citing sources, noting Cultural References in an animated show would likely not require sourcing at all, as it does not have any likelyhood of ever being challenged (it's hardly a discussion of the causes of the Revolutionary War!). Furthermore, there is no source for such references as they are usually not documented. Wikipedia is a rich resource for checking if a TV show made a cultural reference. Sadly, this sort of unnecessary pedantry is ruining Wikipedia.

By tagging or removing the unsourced items editors -are- challenging the references. If you look at articles for episodes such as Something, Something, Something, Dark Side you'll note that there is a references section and that sources are provided. The same goes for many other articles for episodes of cartoon series. If you do not agree with this, you should discuss it in an appropriate forum for such...simply discussing it with me won't establish a consensus in any case. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Ryan (3rd nomination)

There is/was so darn much content... I'll be working on it in User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace A and return stuff to the Ryan article only when sourced. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. With sourcing and more real-world perspective I'd be happy to see the article salvaged. If there's any way you think I might be able to help let me know. Doniago (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As I get closer to completion, I'll gladly call you over for input... two heads being better than one. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Block

Hello,

Should I be blocked, will this be permanent or temporary? AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm not an Admin and I don't know whether you've previously created any issues that admins needed to address. In a best-case scenario I think the block would be for 24 hours, but it's not my place to say for sure. More information is available at WP:BLOCK. If you're really worried that you might do something that would lead to a block, I might recommend focusing on minor edits for the time-being, or taking some time off. Doniago (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you see what I wrote?

I was going to cut down the plot summary. However, I didn't like the errors in Horkana's version, so I was working on it. It'll be done by the end of today with far fewer spelling errors, and in a more flowing style. I simply chose the original version instead of trying to fix Horkana's. --Nmatavka (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Then, as Horkana said on the article's Talk page, I'd recommend working on it in your sandbox and waiting until after your changes are ready to be online to change the article itself. Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions. Doniago (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Avatar discussion

There is a discussion in regards to this edit to the Avatar (2009 film) article. As a frequent editor of the article would you please offer a third opinion at Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Reference_to_Frank_Herbert. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. (smile) I threw in my two cents. If there are specific concerns you have that I didn't offer an opinion on you're welcome to bring them up, here or there. Doniago (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, I didn't mention anything inparticular since it would look like harvesting opinions by loading the request. Basically all I can ask is that the regular editors take a look at the edit and the concerns expressed and draw their own conclusions. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Quit removing perfectly good content

It's disruptive, and in most cases you don't have consensus to do it. Just because YOU consider it trivia doesn't mean it still shouldn't be there Purplebackpack89 01:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel it -should- be there, start a discussion on the appropriate article's Talk page so that a consensus can be established rather than getting pissy with me. That's how WP:BRD works. And frankly, when you come to my Talk page this way I somehow doubt you're either assuming good faith or looking for a productive conversation. Among other things, a "please" or "thank you" would have helped. Heck, you didn't even mention an article so I could review my own edit and possibly offer an apology. Doniago (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted as you failed to follow the BRD guidelines, deliberately mischaracterized my edits, and have not provided any indication as to how the episode is notable (hint - third-party coverage, per the template's own wording, would be nice). If you take issue with my reverts please bring it up at the article's Talk page so that other editors can offer their opinions and a consensus can be established. Discussing them here is inappropriate and unlikely to be productive. Thank you for your consideration. Doniago (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How am I the disruptive one? Looking at the history, you have made quite a few edits to this page; nearly all of them have involved the removal of content. In that process, you've undid several different editors. Also, the notability tag is completely spurrious, unncessary and wrong. Purplebackpack89 04:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, please bring up your concerns at the article's Talk page so that other editors can weigh in. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact removing others contributions just because you don't like them is vandalism (WP:BLANKING). Some of the material that you have removed is common knowledge and thus does not require a citation. It's a bit like tagging the phrase, "The Eiffel Tower is Paris's most recogniseable landmark" with a [citation required] tag. If you search around Wikipedia, you will find that there is much content that is uncited, but has been accepted by concensus. True, you do get the odd idiot who will go around tag bombing articles or just tagging the head of the article. 86.176.155.137 (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check the article's Talk page again, as a third party opinion supports my view that the information is trivial unless there's third-party sourcing or other information regarding how the use of the music is notable. Doniago (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did I mention music? I'm talking generally. I have found numerous instances of WP:BLANKING. It is almost as though you have self appointed yourself as an arbiter of what may appear in articles. I am refering to edits that are reverted by yourself immediately the content is added without any citation needed tag being added. Like it or not, that's vandalism.

I note that you have reverted the tags at the head of the S-video article. The tags are inappropriate to that article as the subject matter is not in contention. 86.176.155.137 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to with WP:BLANKING - that applies to User Talk pages, not Articles. Please provide a correct link or explain what policy you are concerned with.

The Son of Stan edits which provoked this thread specifically involved music played during the episode. I assumed that was your concern.

Removing unsourced material is not vandalism. Inserting it is. See WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFY. If you can't establish where your information is coming from, you should not add it to begin with.

I AM contesting the subject matter of the S-video article. If you are unwilling or unable to provide better sourcing for the material, it is eligible for removal per the policies I've already linked to. Good day. Doniago (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

They you're an idiot. A simple google will of the subject will get hundreds (if not thousands) of hits. For example here is someone selling the leads to connect to the sockets http://www.svideo.com/7pin.html .86.178.8.252 (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mamma Mia!

What sources do you need for just looking at the personnel list??!! --188.123.231.4 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming a list of personnel will necessarily be familiar to someone reading the article. Why are you making this assumption? In any event, if you feel this info does not require sourcing please discuss it at the article's Talk page so that other editors may weigh in. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dawn Treader

Hello. Oh sorry, well I was writing down what I saw in the film; I didn't realise it was original research - sorry. DarkDancer06 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I think for material like that you'd really need a source indicating it was the creators' intent. I don't recall whether it's in the book (which I'm now re-reading) or not, but I didn't get that impression from the film. On a side-note it's not really essential to the plot for a reader to know about it, and we're trying to stick with shorter plot summaries when possible per WP:FILMPLOT. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh right okay, yeah I understand and thanks for your kind reply. And yes, Caspian falling for Ramandu's daughter is in the book; she's actually the one he marries. The attraction to Susan, however, was never in the book; that's only in the film - why they included that, I'll never know because it was a bit far-fetched in my opinion... Well anyway, I'm glad no harm has been done and how many words does the plot need because I am actually a writer so I'd be happy to help you trim it down if it's still too long. DarkDancer06 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew the attraction in PC wasn't in the book, though I felt it enhanced the movie to some degree. I didn't really see it in DT though, and don't think it's enough of an issue to merit inclusion in the plot summary. WP:FILMPLOT indicates that unless the plot's exceptionally convoluted it generally shouldn't exceed 700 words, though personally I don't tend to trim unless it's over 1,000. Doesn't mean other editors can't tag it or trim it though. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sing Sing

I provided the proof. With a citation like you asked. Besides none of the other trivia facts have citations. You CANNOT argue with that proof. 78.144.145.141 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC) NT92

Clearly other editors feel the same way as I do, so I'd suggest discussing this at the article's Talk page rather than here, especially given that you appear to be making an edit war of this, which I assume isn't how you'd like things to go. Also, the fact that none of the other trivia items have citations suggests that they -aren't- appropriate for inclusion, not that yours is. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Except mine is, because it is popular culture and it is true. Do you actually think i'm making it up? 78.144.145.141 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter whether I believe you. What does matter is that a) you need to provide third-party sourching and b) you're continuing to add the same material despite repeated reversions from various editors, which is edit warring. If you continue doing so you may end up being blocked from editing at least temporarily, as this is a policy violation and considered disruptive behavior. I would -strongly- advise you to discuss this at the article's Talk page rather than here, so that this can be handled in a more constructive manner. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. So would you argue with me if I removed all those other trivia facts, because they have no citations. 78.144.145.141 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That section was tagged due to content concerns this month. I would advise waiting a couple of months before removing the other trivia, to give other editors a change to find sourcing for what's there. Naturally, at the same time additional inappropriate material shouldn't be added. If the section wasn't tagged, I'd recommend tagging it. Deletion should generally only be used, IMO, when the editor who added the material can be easily identified and it was done recently. Otherwise, give people a chance to rescue the content. Doniago (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why can you not leave leave my edits there. If you're giving the other trivia a chance to be cited, then why not allow mine the time to find a reliable source (i am looking) instead of removing it instantly. I know that you know my edit is true. 78.144.145.141 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there's no reason you can't find a source and -then- add the material. Is there? And again, if you have so much of a problem with this, why are you not discussing it at the article's Talk page rather than confronting me directly, especially when other editors have made it clear that they share my concerns? Doniago (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that if someone was going to add a source for that other trivia, they would have done it by now? Nobody is going to add any citings and "rescue" the content. Nobody is going to read it and think "Whoa, I need some proof for that outlandish claim!!". Nobody is going to question the trivia, because it is just that, too trivial. If they were so interested i'm sure they would look it up themselves, using a good source, yet one the Wiki considers unreliable for some idiotic reason. I don't even see why this has to be cited. It's not like adding ridiculous claims. 78.144.145.141 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the information was tagged for needing help -this month-, and we're only on day 10 of said month, why would I think that? If you feel it should be removed, go ahead, be bold and remove it. You asked my advice so I gave it to you. Now please respect my request and discuss any further concerns at the article's Talk page rather than here, so that other editors can offer their opinions as well. Maybe you'll find other editors support your viewpoint! Thank you. Doniago (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this OK? http://news.softpedia.com/news/Driver-Parallel-Lines-Cheats-Part-2-and-Glitches-Wii-69368.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.145.141 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. -I- wouldn't remove it, but that doesn't meant the source is considered reliable. I'd recommend bringing it up at the article's Talk page if you would like a more qualified opinion. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this, its an interview with the developer: http://www.gamershell.com/articles/994.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.145.141 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That site isn't loading for me, unfortunately. Might I recommend posting both links to the article's Talk page and letting other editors chime in? Between the two you've probably got a compelling case for inclusion in any event. It's awesome that you're researching this! Doniago (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusion on definition of original research

Sorry if I contacted you incorrectly before, I was trying to figure out how to discuss a problem with you. I understand if you think the part about Arthur C. Clarke is irrelevant or 'original research' but the discussion of Mark Twain and Jack London is not original research. It is factual evidence and I provided two links that offer proof of this. Mark Twain and Jack London did not exist in San Francisco at the same time. Thank you.Don (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)decolley25

Hey there...this is the first contact attempt I'm seeing, actually. (smile) If you could send me a link to the article (or even better, a diff showing your material), I'll be happy to provide my thoughts on it in greater detail than whatever I said in my edit summary. Additionally, if you're really concerned about this and would like the input of other editors as well, I'd invite you to post at the article's Talk page rather than my own. Here you'll (usually) only get my opinion; there we can establish a consensus.

It's kind of late for me righht now, so if whatever the concern is involves me using my brain, you may need to wait a few hours. Sorry about that! Doniago (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to S-video, you will be blocked from editing.

Removal of other contributor's content without good reason is vandalism. If you keep it up, you will be reported. I note from your editing history and the history of S-video that you seem to have a long history of such vandalism. Romoval of content is vandalism under the Wikipedia WP:BLANKING policy which, despite the fact that I have left enough links for you, you clearly haven't bothereed to read up. As I have pointed out, uncited material is permitted on Wikipedia. You are simply being disruptive in deleting content, not because you have supplied any evidence that it is wrong, but simply, it has no citation. The exidstence of 7 and 9 pin plugs is common knowledge and thus, I argue that no citation is required. If it bothers you that much, do a bit of googling and you will find (probably) thousands of hits, one of which you could easily add yourself. 86.178.8.252 (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if had troubled yourself to read the discussion page, you might have discovered that 7 pin and 9-pin variants have been discussed on that page, so there is more evidence that they exist. 86.178.8.252 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just reviewed your edit history. Just yesterday alone you made 56 edits to various articles. None of those edits made any encyclopeadic contribution to any article. Virtually most edits reverted other people's work. The rest were just willy nilly insertion of citation tags. As you go back in the editing history, there are pages and pages of hundreds of edits in a similar vein. I even found a solid block of 12 consecutive reversions. I regard your editing history alone ample evidence of disruptive editing. If you continue, you stand an excelent chance of being blocked.

As for your contention that it only applies to user talk pages: that simply isn't true. Why else would Wikipedia have a template for inclusion on vandals talk pages (as used above). 86.178.13.15 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to report me. Please do so immediately, as I feel a third-party opinion would be quite helpful in this discussion. Doniago (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure: 'tis done. 86.178.13.15 (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

editing somebody else's comment

Sorry about that. All i did was turn a word into a link, but point taken and i wont edit other's comments anymore. 99.162.156.99 (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I really dithered on whether or not to say anything at all, but figured it was better to give you the note since you can just wipe it off your Talk page and no harm done. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Complaint at WP:AN3

Hello Doniago. A user has complained about your removal of material at S-Video and other articles. Please see WP:AN3#User:Doniago reported by User:86.178.13.15 (Result: ). You can reply there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advisory. I'm not especially concerned about this, as I think it arises from the IP's failure to understand and properly follow policy more than anything else, but I'll keep tabs on it and speak up if I feel my perspective is desired or needed. Thanks again! Doniago (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I disn't fail to understand anything. The very link to the editing policy that you yourself provided (WP:VERIFY) states very clearly, "in practice not everything need actually be attributed". You didn't even have to scroll down to find it. Please explain here which part of this policy, you failed to understand.

Going back to an example I quoted earlier, from the {{Eiffel Tower]] article. The whole phrase reads,

"The Eiffel Tower ... has become both a global icon of France and one of the most recognizable structures in the world."

This was tagged with a tag by some editor like yourself. It was discussed on the discussion page and decided that it fell within the above non attribution because it was common knowledge and not in doubt and the tag removed.

I am still awaiting to see your evidence that 7-pin and 9-pin variants of the S-video connector do not exist as you have clearly decided. 86.176.69.42 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the outcome of the discussion you started on 3RR regarding my "vandalism", you'll forgive me if I continue to belief that you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia procedures regarding sourcing material. I strongly recommend that any further discussion of content disputes occur at individual article Talk pages unless and until you are willing to assume good faith on my part, and I may not acknowledge any further messages you leave on my Talk page. Good Day. Doniago (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What?

What are you talking about, establish? It's in the movie.

Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevUrban (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's notable/appropriate for inclusion. This isn't IMDb; please provide sourcing so that it's clear this isn't just WP:TRIVIA. If you disagree, bring it up at the article's Talk page where other users can weigh in. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's appropriate, it's a quirk to the movie. So, Pop Culture refereances about The Touch being used in American Dad is more relevant than a quirk about the movie itself. I know this isn't IMDb, this is a website where people are welcome to add what they feel is relevant to the article. Who are you to decide it stays out, any more than I feel it goes in? I don't understand what you mean sourcing; what are you trying to describe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevUrban (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, if you disagree, bring it up at the article's Talk page so other users can weigh in. This website is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia, as I mentioned before. As for American Dad, I don't believe any reference to The Touch is more relevant - not sure what you mean by bringing it up here. Please read WP:RS for information about sourcing. Doniago (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I do disagree, and I did bring it up. I understand it's an encyclopedia, this is information about the movie. As for American Dad, I'm making a comparison. Making a cross reference is to a song being shared in the Movie and another Cartoon series, is mearly trivia as well. I feel what I want to add is more relevant.KevUrban (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about then, as in reference to American Dad, consensus at that article's Talk page currently is to remove the song info and I fully intend to do so, since there's no indication as to how that is non-trivial. Doniago (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. What I'm debating is, as by the link you directed me to, "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book)...". The Movie itself is my source. How do I "source" the movie itself, so my addition is added as a flaw about the movie itself, without you removing it and accusing it of being trivia?KevUrban (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding about Wikipedia, as long as my addition falls within the parameters of the 5 Pillars (which is does), and Goals, Scope and Organisation of the Movie Project (which it does), I have every right to add my information.KevUrban (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the clarification. What you need is third-party sourcing. You need to illustrate that these issues aren't just trivial and aren't just points that a Wikipedia editor feels are important; that they were important enough that a reliable source took note of them. It isn't enough for us to say what errors occur in the film, we need to be able to say something like, "Roger Ebert particularly faulted the film for it's numerous goofs, such as..." followed by a proper citation.

I hope that clears things up for you. As I said, if you can't find a third-party source but still feel the material is appropriate, my strongest recommendation would be to discuss it at the article's Talk page. That way other editors can chime in and a consensus can be reached. Thank you for your understanding. Doniago (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop Deleting Content

Give a person a chance to reference their entry. There were numerous sentences on the Corey Feldman page that lacked references. Why single out and delete mine? Instead of being gung-ho, why not wait for someone to cite their reference after pointing out the mistake to them?

This type of behavior reflects a negative attitude on your part and I would imagine discourages those who are just starting to contribute. This is not helpful in any way.

If you remove my content, now that it has a citation, I will report the violation. In the future, being helpful would be the better approach to take.