![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
-- Dr zoidberg590 ( talk) 13:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Who is it that decides that a synopsis is too detailed? What is the negative of a detailed synopsis. If I do not get a reply I will remove that erroneous banner once more.
Source sited an academic research project, which is discussed on other Wikipedia pages: /info/en/?search=Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon Jeffsang ( talk) 18:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I was actually just about to undo my edit before you reverted me because I couldn't find any other sources to support the claim except for the one linked in the article from the Mirror, which is just another source similar to the DailyMail. I would say the DailyMail/Mirror might be reliable enough for other claims, but they certainly appear to be unreliable for this particular claim upon further scrutiny, especially since I was looking for more official primary sources to validate the claim, and couldn't find any. I guess I got too excited about the "great news" and failed to do a full investigation before I did my edit. Anyway, thanks for looking out... Huggums537 ( talk) 18:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Please state which policy. And policy, not guideline. -- Alex TW 23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes.And as such, it follows the manual of style of encyclopaedias and other acadaemic works. Which means, from MOS:WAF:
Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should use the real world as their primary frame of reference. As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded.DonQuixote ( talk) 00:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Please take a look at the Thor: Ragnarok talkpage. I am trying to improve the Plot with a minor edit, yet I am the one accused of trying to start an edit war? Please take a look at my argument on the talkpage and if I am wrong, please tell me. 99.243.63.168 ( talk) 18:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, DonQuixote. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I just went back and saw that. LOL. That edit has gone from assuming good faith to realizing that was pure trolling. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you would stop removing my edit re vegetarianism. I explained my reasoning the last time and you have not responded. As I indicated the movie is one long examination of the issues with the animal agricultural industry - have you seen the movie? I have a direct quotation from a co-author which is appropriately cited. Why do you keep deleting it? Watson Jung ( talk) 03:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a quotation from the CO AUTHOR of the movie. All I've done is use his quoted words. Please stop undoing the edit...and I'd suggest you see the movie! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watson Jung ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Okja shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Greyjoy talk 11:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
So I have now read this material about edit wars. I don't want to get into an edit war and I'm obviously new to this and I'm trying to understand your concerns and learn from your suggestions. The edits I'm trying to make are important and relevant that heretofore has been ignored in the current article. So...I've created the following - does this work (..and hopefully I'm getting closer!!)? I look forward to hearing from you. Watson Jung ( talk) 13:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The movie addresses several ethical themes.
Ok..I'll take that line out and let the quotes stand on their own. Does that work for you?
Watson Jung (
talk)
18:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The New York Times movie review was entitled "In ‘Okja,’ a Girl and Her Pig Take on the Food Industrial Complex." It states 'Okja’s oppressors, like E. T.’s, are part of a system that refuses to recognize her as anything more than a thing. In this case, that system is specifically the food industrial complex, and her tale is a clear and effective animal rights fable, or at least a protest against factory farming and genetic engineering." [1]
The Director Bong Joon Ho became temporarily vegan after researching slaughter houses in preparation for the movie's final scenes. While no longer vegan he says “In the process of making this movie, my level of meat consumption has decreased. Now I’m gradually becoming a pescatarian.” [2]
The co-writer of the movie, Jon Ronson, has also spoken out about the possible social impact of the movie. "I think the movie will turn people vegetarian," co-writer Jon Ronson tells Heat Vision. "I think there’s a whole load of 16-year-olds who don’t realize where their food comes from or don’t realize that within five weeks time they’re going to be vegetarian. I think that is going to happen. But I really don’t think that was my intention or Bong’s intention. Own your lifestyle choices and own your positions. If you’re going to eat meat, this is what happens in the slaughterhouse," [3]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
Hi DonQuixote, I just wanted to let you know that I rollbacked you at Rogue One on accident. Sorry! JOE BRO 64 23:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays |
From Stave one of Dickens
A Christmas Carol
So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD| Talk 00:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
Hi DQ. I know there are lots of nice compilations of the Xmas episodes out there. This is my favorite because it includes the First Doctor's lines from "The Feast of Steven." Enjoys Monday's episode! MarnetteD| Talk 00:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I was actually just adding the references in. Perhaps next time you could wait a little longer than 60 seconds before reverting an edit, to allow an editor to insert references? Thanks and happy Christmas. Cnbrb ( talk) 19:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You wrote on MY talk page.........
"
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Into the Dalek. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. DonQuixote ( talk) 00:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
In short what a LOAD of GARBAGE.
I Added some NEW INFORMATION.
What I write is harsh but its straight to the point as, Donquixote, your lightning speed at attacking my contributions shows aggressive intent to troll in a very creepy way that has totally creeped me out.
YOU are the one who is repeatedly reverting or undoing MY contributions at Into the Dalek
I have NOT altered anything any other editor has contributed.
You reverted my contributions so quickly its VERY OBVIOUS you are a 'Rock Spider' waiting in the shadows to 'pounce on' other editors contributions AS SOON AS THEY ARE ADDED. Reading above you have a HISTORY of doing this to editors.
I read the guide you linked to and re-added my contribution accordingly. I added the tag "(Added 'Story Arc'[ linking this to the 2017 special after reading the Dr Who guide. DonQuixote... the info is relevant so rather than being an 'Edit Police' ass, don't throw your 'weight around' by deleting it...be a good team player & IMPROVE IT.)"
Within seconds you played 'Edit Police Ass' and reverted it again and placed the quoted above statement on my talk page accusing me of being the reverter of other editors work when the statement is actually true of what you are doing to my work.
OK - I'll play your game - You accused me of "You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Into the Dalek"
WHOS WORK HAVE I REVERTED WHEN, AS YOU KNOW, I HAVE ONLY ADDED INFORMATION.
I pointed out my contribution was relevant and invited you to IMPROVE it rather than delete it.
You chose to delete it once again showing you are purely trolling my edits.
It seems very clear to me through your pouncing to revert other editors work [mine in this case] so quickly and by way of other editors constant complaints you are doing the same to them, I can only assume you are a sad little troll dedicated to crushing the work of others.
I have a question that is very relevant.
With all the pages on wikipedia how the HELL are you able to pounce on an update to a single page so quickly?
There is only one answer - you have targeted ME personally and have a watch on any edit I post, OR you have a watch on the 'Into the dalek' page.
This shows you with a clear "intent to Troll" and ID's you as an aggressive edit warrer.
You waffle about being 'against consensus' with my contribution without even an attempt to explain what is wrong with the information I provided [AFTER I read in the Dr Who guide that 'Continuity' referred to past episodes only so I added a new section under Story Arcs which was RELEVANT and consistent with the guide as there is a definite arc between Into the Dalek and Twice Upon a time.]
The fact you unjustly tried to accuse me of being the 'reverter' and 'edit warrer' shows you are dedicated to 'standing over' other editors.
Is your life really so sad and empty that all you have to do is dominate other editors, and so fast that its actually CREEPY.
I mean you are a total "Rock Spider".... you jumped on me out of no-where immediately I added my contribution, hardly any time passed at all, like you were lying in waiting, like a pedo pouncing on a small child from behind a bush. Like I said CREEPY! and other comments show I am not your only victim.
Explain yourself, troll and answer the points I have raised above. RokkoRokkoRokkanno ( talk) 01:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Continuity: This section should only reference previous episodes as knowledge of future episodes is not required for any understanding of the current episode.
Are you kidding me???
Thats the 'Consensus' for the 'continuity' heading, fool.
Thats why I created a heading under 'Story Arc.
Its not part of the 'Continuity' heading.
The guide discusses arcs and they are a relevant topic on their own.
YOUR point for disregarding my edit is unvalidated....
Now... You accused me of being an edit warrer when that wasn't true.
I have challenged you with that - Wheres your answer to it.
I brought up points re your rockspidering.
You have not answered that.
Re-read what I challenged you with and answer my points, People like you create a bad environment for Wikipedia - and bring the concept down.
RokkoRokkoRokkanno ( talk) 02:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
So, essentially you are saying that episodes cannot be linked in wikipedia as story arcs. This is ridiculous and 'story arcs' are a real thing so the idiot who deleted the Dr Who story arcs page is clearly another self indulgent pretentious prat. Was it YOU who deleted it by any chance?
Wikipedia is supposed to provide information.
People are interested in information, thats why Wikipedia exists, not to provide pretemtious prats who crave power over others efforts a vehicle to accommodate their trolling instincts.
The article "Into the Dalek" centrered around a Dalek character in Doctor Who who reappeared in a later episode that had events and situations that began in 'Into the Dalek".
So, Mr 'Sheldon Cooper' clone you don't get that a reader of 'Into the Dalek' might like to know that the story began in that show was continued in a later episode.
Its RELEVANT AS HELL and there must be a way that it can be included on the "Into the Dalek" page without engaging in pratty nitpicking.
Re cite your sources - holy shit, the source is the description within the episode plotline itself and acceptance of that has been vaildated in wiki guidelines as i have read it before.
You are so committed to shooting others down in a ridiculous non-constructive manner I can be forgiven for questioning wether your IQ actually manages double digits.
How similiar are you to the "Sheldon Cooper" character - People who war on others like you do to 'feel important' usually have little or no social skills as this behavior tends to be be indicative of an antisocial person - you're clearly a sociopath.
You ARE trolling, as there must be a way that the info can be placed on the "Into the Dalek" page somehow in a wiki-acceptable manner so if you weren't on a trolling mission you would have improved the info by using whatever knowledge you claim to have re wiki by making it fit in your own self-percieved 'correct' way, as I invited to you.
Nope, you are just trying to be 'big' by stomping on others efforts to gratify your sense of self importance.
I have also asked you twice previously to answer the points I have brought up, like how you are able to 'rockspider' a page update / another editors contribution so fast, and you tried to frame ME for edit reverting / warring when it was you who are doing so. You are a dedicated troll Donquixote and thats backed up by your refusal to explain yourself. I am requesting an explanations for those points a THIRD time now, if you refuse to explain yourself as I have requested again, it would not only show you up as a complete coward, but confirm you are a committed troll.
so explain yourself RokkoRokkoRokkanno ( talk) 03:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to provide information.
Hi "Don."
I'm not a major contributor to Wikipedia, and have not engaged in an exchange of talk messages before, so apologies if I don't have the form correct.
You twice reverted a change I'd made to the /info/en/?search=The_Doctor_Falls#Continuity section, the first as I cited no sources, and the second time reporting that I didn't cite a reliable source. I did include citations the second time, with links to videos posted by the BBC itself to YouTube, but they weren't text references, or links to the BBC itself. I don't have the time or energy to try to find fanzine references, or to try to figure out if the BBC has a "Fact File" entry for a 1971 TV episode, let alone how to find it or reference it. I'm not that committed, and have other matters that need my attention. I doubt that anyone will find my contribution in the history archive. So, in this case, it appears that a goal of having perfect entries can be met by removing my imperfect entry. My impression was that Wikipedia worked best by having multiple contributors polishing each other's work, finding and fixing typos, and improving entries. Complete removal of correct material due to a lack of citations of the correct form seems inappropriate. Leaving the entry and marking it as needing better source citations would have seemed more reasonable, but as I said, I'm no expert. I'm not interested or willing to battle this out. I'm done, and will move on to other more rewarding matters.
Regards,
William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjw1961 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I cited videos on YouTube posted by the BBC. Those would seem definitive for content of a TV show produced by the BBC. As I said, I'm done. William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjw1961 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Such devices figured prominently in stories with the Third Doctor,That is your personal observation and thus original research. A quick rule of thumb is that if you can't start with a direct quote, then it shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia article. DonQuixote ( talk) 21:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Fine. So a statement like "The third doctor is shown working on one in the scene which introduces Jo Grant" would meet your standards, but you felt it more appropriate to entirely remove the reference rather than to change the statement to improve it? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjw1961 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
would there be an ideal place to link Doctor Mew or should i start a separate template for fan works like Star Trek fan productions? thanks!- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐) 09:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know Executive Producers were figureheads. Now I know why Brad Pitt didn't get a second Oscar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.50.180 ( talk) 22:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Don , thanks for your message , I work for the show so if i put something up its true Wirrndalek ( talk) 16:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey Quixote I removed the unnecessary part from intro section because its redundant in the page. The same stuff is in production category. Who is reverting my changes ? and why is that person getting more priority than me ? he can get the three revert rule and he can be blocked right ? because he is reverting my changes or is it you ? if so I think I gave my reason not just here but in my revert comments as well...whats wrong with this picture ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula ( talk • contribs)
Hello there - thank you for you message regarding Extremis and The Magician's Apprentice. You have reverted changes that I made to these articles because you felt that they constituted original research. However, this is incorrect reading of the text I added; I included links to other pages that quoted the lines of dialogue I mentioned (i.e. reference to the number of brain stems). I also made no attempt to synthesise these differences. As such, it cannot constitute original research. I have reversed the deletions. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2A35:4F00:B967:BDAD:C006:7941 ( talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Further, I've added a reference to Den of Geek, which includes mention of this issue. The same article is cited in the previous paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2A35:4F00:B967:BDAD:C006:7941 ( talk) 15:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You don't know anything about Spider-Man and/or Marvel. Then go f*ck yourself.-- AmigoGenial ( talk) 23:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi DQ. I hope you are well. Only a few days to go! There are lots of creative people producing good Dr Who videos on Youtube. This is one of my favorites and perfect as a lead in to Sunday. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 18:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Here are a couple memories of my own personal DW watching that you may have experienced as well. First, the "One day I shall come back" first Doctor speech is such a part of the shows lore now - well, I first saw it when it was the preamble for The Five Doctors on Nov. 23, 1983. At the time PBS had not aired any black and white episodes (typical bean counters thinking people would not watch them) so I didn't know what story it came from. I learned about it being from the end of The Dalek Invasion of Earth a couple days later at the 20th Anniversary Convention in Chicago. Second is about how much technology has changed in our years with the show. The first time I saw the regeneration sequence from the end of The Tenth Planet was at a convention here in Denver in August of '83. It was shown on a movie screen and the image was fuzzy and mostly white. I could barely tell the two actors apart. Comparing that to the cleaned up and digitally enhanced version at the end of Twice Upon a Time is amazing. It looks better there then it did for those lucky people who got to see it in 1966 :-) I hope you enjoy Jodie's 1st episode. MarnetteD| Talk 18:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Don. Linking to hero prop (piped under "hero") in Deadpool doesn't seem that Easter Eggy to me. I felt it was good to gloss the meaning of "hero" so readers unfamiliar with the production term wouldn't think of it as a "superhero costume", considering the subject of the film. I felt this was a good explanation of a technical term or industry jargon, as suggested by MOS:UL. Would you accept a link to hero prop piped uner "hero version" (or "hero versions of the costume")? Hoof Hearted ( talk) 13:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I was also considering dropping an anchor at the last bullet at Theatrical property#Modern usage, and redirecting hero prop there - so it would be first on the screen after clicking that link. Would that be better? Hoof Hearted ( talk) 13:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you please explain how I turn this URL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rogue_One&diff=865143825&oldid=865141865) into a proper source?
Thanks! 91.10.24.175 ( talk) 01:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
You can also find easter eggs links to delete on the Halloween (1978) and Halloween (2018) articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.31.159 ( talk) 22:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
There is one on Halloween II (1981). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.31.159 ( talk) 22:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, DonQuixote. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, DonQuixote. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You made a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTheMan2150AD ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.DonQuixote ( talk) 23:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Hello DQ, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 19:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hello DonQuixote,
I answer your message regarding my contribution to the article. I added to the article a Historical reference. Indeed the episode takes place in England 17th Century. The BBC page of the episode (which I indicated as a source) refers to King James as one of the protagonists. I also cited as a source the BBC writer's room which publishes the official script of the show. The only King James whose mother was beheaded was King James VI of Scotland and first of England. I quoted the Wikipedia page of the historical figure and of his mother's Mary Queen of Scots. I think then that my addition to the article was reliable and contained sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ely7780 ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I added an article of The Guardian which corroborates my statement. Checking on my link now.
I don't think it is trivia to add historical references to an article about a tv show episode which takes place in History — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ely7780 (
talk •
contribs)
19:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it is really rude that you keep making changes to other people's addition to an article. I cited the official script of the BBC. What do you want more than that? A direct quote from Jodie Whittaker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ely7780 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm totally on your side at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Paternoster_Gang_(audio_drama), and I can certainly understand the frustration that leads to you saying "hate to break it to you", but that kind of wording will only entrench the attitudes of the other parties to the discussion IMHO. -- Slashme ( talk) 08:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You can also find easter eggs links to delete on the Halloween film, Jurassic Park film, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on elm street articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 ( talk) 17:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Your edits to this page, in the second version, have raised some questions in the years since you have edited there. Could you please review that edit, so as to determine whether “it’s” was used incorrectly, or if “its” was used, and the word was typed incorrectly? TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk) 00:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC).
Hi, than you but it is 12 years I'm on Wikipedia, so I have some knowledge about sources. What I cannot get is why the same source is reliable for some data and unreliable for others. Either the source is reliable, or is not.-- Ferdinando Scala ( talk) 17:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Although review aggregator sites such as Rotten Tomatoes are used across the site, audience ratings based on the reviews of site members from the public are not.DonQuixote ( talk) 18:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised to read your objection that the cited MA thesis was not by a notable person. I had never understood that we are constrained to cite only writings that are "notable". I feel more in line with the sentiment that "it's not trivia if you can cite a reliable source. This an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, which works by citing and summarising secondary sources". Hoping you will not object if I reinstate the reference. With so much discussion of Dr. Who in pop culture, it is worth noting that the doctor is now being taken more seriously than other television programs. Genuinely trying to be constructive. Pete unseth ( talk) 18:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello DQ. I hope you are well. Kudos for this edit. It also gave me a chance to stop by and say hello. With the time between Dr Who seasons growing ever longer I don't bump into you as often so I am always glad to see your name on my watchlist :-) Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 17:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Stop undoing my edits on SHAFT 2019. The Information about positive reviews by audiences is cited on the same source that provides numbers on the negative critical reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockpapersilver ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Although review aggregators — for example, review aggregation sites — such as Rotten Tomatoes are used across the site, audience ratings based on the reviews of site members from the public are not.DonQuixote ( talk) 01:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
DonQuixote thankfully edited A View To A Kill, the reason is that is I tried to put United Artists in the production companies, but it ended up ruining it. Anyway I decided to only to put MGM/UA Entertainment Co. as distributed. 75.175.136.232 ( talk) 01:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
If the facts of the 2000 movie changed 19 years later, it should be stated in the section about the 2000 movie. This is what was believed then, but now it has changed and it's no longer a fact.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Describing aspects of the work as if they were real.
Fictography – a character description that is written like a biography,
Attempting to reconcile contradictions or bridge gaps in the narrative, rather than simply reporting them as such.,
Using in-jokes and references that require knowledge of work's plot, its fictional elements, or related works., etc. DonQuixote ( talk) 21:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what makes it wrong to do this in a brief summary but not in the main articles, but of course in one of the articles it appears ina footnote, so I guess that works.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. You're right - she does introduce herself as "Spider-Woman" after all. Just to clarify why I had changed it originally, this clip on Sony's official YouTube channel does say "Spider-Gwen" at 0:23 for some reason even though she says "Spider-Woman" in the same clip in the actual movie. I had no reason to think there was a difference. Alphius ( talk) 07:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello DQ. Today is the 100th anniversary of Jon Pertwee's birth! Here is a nice interview with Sean. Being the child of any of the actors playing the Dr would be amazing. With Jon's love of gadgets Sean's youth must have been a real treat. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 17:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This message regards the article River Song. While I understand that River Song is a fictional character, It does not change the fact that she was born with the name Melody Pond. Therefore, I feel it is justified in including the name Melody pond the opening paragraph. As such, I will be reinstating my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oj2002 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
For example, instead of introducing the character as: "Gandalf was a powerful wizard", write: "Gandalf is characterised as a powerful wizard", or: "Gandalf is a wizard who appears within the works of J. R. R. Tolkien".Which means that instead of writing
River Song (born Melody Pond), we should write
When the character was first introduced, much about her origins remained a mystery. Following the character's initial appearance..., etc. DonQuixote ( talk) 21:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)