User talk:Anonnymos

Original Research
Hi, Thanks for your observation and your analysis that the two lines are similar. However, this is classified as original research and is against Wikipedia's policy. A way to address this issue is to cite a notable, and thus reliable, source that makes that observation. Thanks. Also, please review the guideline bold edit, revert, and discuss on talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I read the link you indicated. I'm a newbie here (obviously), + it's perplexing. I added 2 links, one to Oates+his last words, and one to another Dr.Who episode where someone else had noted the same thing, to cite 2 proofs that it was indeed a quote, and Dr. Who had done this quote before. The other article had had a note that it needed a citation, which was dated Feb., so someone else was able to make this observation WITHOUT having it removed. Things w/o citations are left alone when OTHER people do it, why not make the same kind of note in my case,+ hope someone sharp can provide the citation? Since the episode was just re-shown after many years, the chances that someone WOULD go to the article+do that seem high to me. That you would class an observation that seems blindingly obvious as "original research" blindsided me. I did zero research--I simply recognized a quote--the words of which are in a WP article which should stand as proof. I'm not trying to be disruptive, replacing again+again, but there seems to be something wrong here, and as I've said, someone else did the same thing w/o being treated the same way. I have no idea how I would scare up a Notable Source. My recognition WAS reliable even though you don't acknowledge it as such, + to me, research is a much more difficult+weighty thing.Anonnymos (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But in Wikipedia terms, original research is doing exactly what you describe above - watching a DW episode and recognising a quote made decades earlier by a historic figure. We do not report on what we have observed - we report on what others have already observed and reported upon. The places where such reports were made are the sources, see WP:RS and WP:V.
 * I should also point out that material added to Wikipedia must not be sourced from elsewhere in Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR); also that because other people have done something similar, it doesn't mean that it is right to do the same. Each case must be considered on its own merits. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)