User talk:Doniago

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 98.234.27.224 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Thanks.

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)

Thanks!

		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 (talk • contrib) 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 (talk • contrib) 00:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

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. 98.248.32.178 (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! 59.42.151.22 (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 JPS^{talk 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 JPS^{talk to me} 09:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ta :) The JPS^{talk 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 82.24.210.54 (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.82.24.210.54 (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 (talk • contrib) 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 (talk • contrib) 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)

Agricite

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)

FYI

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 (talk • contrib) 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry

P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.29.124 (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 (talk • contrib) 05:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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 documentation...it 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)...now 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)

Talkback

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.

hi,

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)

Dogma

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. 99.169.250.133 (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. 99.169.250.133 (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; Deadites.net 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 Deadites.net 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 ...in 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)

Vandalism

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 personally...it 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)

February 2010

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Asperger syndrome, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.Template:Do not delete DaiZengar^{Smite evil} 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)