User talk:DonQuixote/Archive 4

Doctor Who Ghostlight synopsis size
--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.
 * A rule of thumb is that it should be between 400-700 words long. Follow the link in the tag for more information. DonQuixote (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Eric Roberts as the Center
Source sited an academic research project, which is discussed on other Wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon Jeffsang (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The research project itself can't be cited, however if the results are published in an academic journal then the paper can be cited. DonQuixote (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Marco Polo
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)

Doctor Who
Please state which policy. And policy, not guideline. --  Alex TW 23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From List of policies: 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)
 * So, there is no direct policy stating this? Thanks. --  Alex TW 00:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're wandering into WP:BADIDEA. The policy is to edit a good encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias depend on good manuals of style that specifically state how one should write about fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thor: Ragnarok
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)
 * In this context, it doesn't matter what your argument is. It matters that you have repeatedly inserted your material in spite of other editors telling you to take it to the talk page. I have only given you warnings about it. Please discuss on the talk page before redoing your edit. DonQuixote (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What happens if a small group of editors decides that they don't want any more improvements on the article? What happens if they are in fact a cartel-like organization and are ganging up to revert my edits to make it seem like I am the one trying to start an edit war, when in fact they have all the guns?  Have you taken a look at my arguments on the Thor Ragnarok talkpage and my edits? Please take a look and tell me if I am wrong. 99.243.63.168 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, assume good faith, and second, consensus doesn't have to be what you like. DonQuixote (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about what I like it is about what is right. Please take a look at my argument and if I am wrong, tell me.  If I am right tell me as well, then at least I know I am not crazy. 99.243.63.168 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue with you on the topic, so you're not going to get anywhere with me. Discuss the issue at talk:Thor: Ragnarok. I'm not the person(s) you have to convince with your arguments.
 * Also, what you think is "right" is your opinion. See WP:TRUTH. DonQuixote (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on your response, you have not read my argument. If you are going to send me a message accusing me of edit warring then you should at the very least  read my argument and tell me why I'm wrong.  So on that account, you are right I am getting no where with you and I am wasting both of our time.  This is why Wikipedia is losing editors and active users.  So I will do us both a favor and promise that I will never comment again on your talkpage.  Your welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.63.168 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry, I don't have to read your argument. I can warn you when you cross the line on editing etiquette and just choose to stay out of the argument altogether. Sorry. DonQuixote (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WW
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)

Okja - Please stop removing my edits.
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)
 * You would need to cite a reliable source that says anything like that, otherwise it's original research which goes against policy.
 * Also, as I keep pointing out, that material presented in the source that you did provide is rather thin. DonQuixote (talk) 03:07, 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Grey joy 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.
 * You would need to cite a source for that. What you've done is called synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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 quotes don't do anything on their own, let alone support a section titled "Ethical Themes". Currently you just have three quotes that don't amount to much in terms of an encyclopaedia article. As I have suggested, you would need to do a lot more research if you want to write anything about "themes". DonQuixote (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * An example, you would need to find articles like this Star Wars article. And you would have to find quite a few of them (rather than just one). DonQuixote (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

ETHICAL THEMES
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."

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.”

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,"

My apologies
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)
 * No problem. It happens. :) DonQuixote (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Change is almost here :-)
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&#124;Talk 00:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Tenth Planet
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)

Re December 2017
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)


 * If you want to change the current consesus (as summarised in the style guide), join the discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. DonQuixote (talk) 00:59, 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)
 * From WikiProject Doctor Who/Style advice: Continuity: This section should only reference previous episodes as knowledge of future episodes is not required for any understanding of the current episode.
 * Clearly, that's the consensus. Your edits are against consensus. If you want to change consensus, then discuss it on the relevant talk pages. DonQuixote (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * Claiming that it's a "story arc" is even worse than mentioning future continuity (which is still what you did). You would need to cite a reliable source that states that it is a story arc, otherwise it's original research. (Note: The article Story arcs in Doctor Who was deleted, by consensus, for just this reason.) DonQuixote (talk) 02:34, 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.
 * Wikipedia is supposed to provide information from reliable sources. See WP:TRUTH. DonQuixote (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources...
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)


 * Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that it works by citing and summarising reliable secondary sources. What you're doing is clearly original research and completely inappropriate for encyclopaedias. Unless you can cite a reliable source that says what you want to add, it can't be verified as being "true". DonQuixote (talk) 19:27, 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)


 * None of those sources, being primary sources, say 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)
 * Yes, because it's original research which goes against what Wikipedia is trying to be. The onus of responsibility for proper citation is on the person trying to add the unsourced material. It's not other editor's responsibility since there's no guarantee that it's not a wild goose chase. DonQuixote (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Mew
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)
 * To be honest, there isn't much in terms of fan productions, so a template would be a bit trivial. DonQuixote (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about my Moonlight edits.
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)
 * No problem. Thanks for stopping by my talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi
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)
 * This is an encylcopaedia. Encyclopaedias, and other tertiary sources, work by citing and summarising reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reg. American Psycho
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)
 * Please review WP:BRD. Your bold edit was reverted. The etiquette is to discuss on the talk page of the article. Arguments shouldn't be made exclusively in the edit summary but rather should be moved to the talk pages when there's a disagreement. DonQuixote (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Original research" for Extremis and The Magician's Apprentice
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 should have led with the Den of Geek article because if you can't start with a direct quote--that is, directly say that there's a continuity between the two episodes, which you couldn't with your other sources, then it's original research--and it's synthesis if you put your sources together to imply something that they don't directly say.
 * Also, imdb is not considered a reliable source (see WP:USERG). DonQuixote (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

RE
You don't know anything about Spider-Man and/or Marvel. Then go f*ck yourself.--AmigoGenial (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Almost here
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&#124;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&#124;Talk 18:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi again DQ. I stumbled on this treat for Star Trek aficionados last night. I think every fan should get one in their Xmas stocking - as long as it is only ONE! HeeHee MarnetteD&#124;Talk 12:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL! DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it DQ. Just saw this thread Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 59. If it had read "Donna Noble wins Strickland prize" it would have been okay since she does have an article :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hero prop
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, 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)
 * "Hero version of the costume" is fine. "Hero" by itself should link to the article on hero. DonQuixote (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Proper Sourcing
Could you please explain how I turn this URL (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogue_One&diff=865143825&oldid=865141865) into a proper source?

Thanks! 91.10.24.175 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The plot summary is citing and summarizing the primary source. The source that you provided is a secondary source and thus the information from that should be placed in another section such as Production. Also, you should include an inline citation. You can use DonQuixote (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Halloween 1978/2018
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)
 * Thanks for spotting those. DonQuixote (talk) 22:36, 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)
 * Thanks. Also, if you think a link violates Wikipedia's policy on easter egg links, please feel free to correct it. DonQuixote (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Series 11 Rumours
You made a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTheMan2150AD (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:RUMOR Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. DonQuixote (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The Witchfinder episode of DW
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)
 * You would need to cite a secondary source that states that any of the above is notable in the context of the episode. Otherwise, it's trivia with a touch of synthesis. Also, the writer's room link doesn't work as it pops up a 404. DonQuixote (talk) 19:28, 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)
 * 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. DonQuixote (talk) 19:34, 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)
 * And I think it is really rude that you keep ignoring the rules of an encyclopaedia. Citing the episode isn't enough, nor is citing the script. You have to cite a reliable secondary source that says that this is notable in the context of the episode. You have done that by citing The Guardian. You have to do it for the other things as well. DonQuixote (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"hate to break it to you"?
Hi there,

I'm totally on your side at 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)

Easter egg links
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)
 * Thanks for finding those. You can also help. Cheers. DonQuixote (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your editing at Wikisource
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).
 * I'm assuming you mean "It's unobstrusive Mass". It's "It's" in all the versions listed in The Poems of Emily Dickinson (R.W. Franklin ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998 (Volume II pg 831). DonQuixote (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC).

Star Trek Discovery
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)
 * User generated content, by its very definition, is not considered reliable. Nothing by the general public is considered a reliable secondary source. At most, it's considered a primary source that must be reported on by reliable secondary sources before being mentioned in an encyclopedia. It's the same reason why articles in newspapers can be cited but letters to the editor cannot. DonQuixote (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is just what I don't get. I understand that general public opinions can be classified as primary source, it's a no-brainer. But here it is Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator that is by definition a secondary source, that reports about those data. Btw, it reports them in numbers much higher than the ones from professional critics. I'm under the impression that when quoting Rotten Tomatoes for critics' opinion and not the audience's, we are doing WP:CHERRYPICK. Again, we are not talking about direct data from audience; we are quoting a secondary source that talks about those data.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously, user generated content in-and-of-itself, no matter the source, is never-ever considered a reliable source. That's actually the bottom line. And no, Rotten Tomatoes isn't talking about the data because the Rotten Tomatoes user base is literally the ones creating the data. So, no, there's no cherry-picking at all. We would need a secondary source specifically discussing the data to even begin anything close to cherry-picking. DonQuixote (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Why this doesn't apply to critics' data? Just for my understanding.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because professional critics have reputations and aren't the general public. See critic.
 * Also, from WP:USERG 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)
 * Okay, this last ones clarifies the whole lot. Thank you for your time. :-)Ferdinando Scala (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing an MA thesis on Dr. Who article
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)
 * A Master's thesis is rarely notable. DonQuixote (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. But 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". Pete unseth (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, please show a tertiary source (such as a textbook or The Encyclopaedia Britannica or similar works) that has cited a master's thesis (or even a doctoral thesis for that matter). DonQuixote (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Citing a thesis fulfills all the appropriate criteria for Wikipedia. Notability is for topics of articles, cited sources only need to be reliable. In my discipline, Google Scholar lists 1,057 hits for David Stampe's linguistic dissertation with the unexciting title A dissertation on natural phonology (1972). It has been cited in such textbooks as Prince & Smolensky's Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Also in Bynon's Historical linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 1977. Another textbook in which it is cited is Katamba's An introduction to phonology.  London: Longman, 1989. In my textbook, Phonology in Generative Grammar by Kenstowicz, over 25 dissertations are cited. I hope this will satisfy your doubts about whether theses or dissertations are cited in textbooks. But this should not be required. Wikipedia allows citations of newspapers, websites, magazines, journals of limited circulation -- why not a thesis which takes much more serious work than a newspaper article, and is attested to by a university? Amicably Pete unseth (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the amount of effort you put into addressing my concerns. Although I'm still a little hesitant, I'll concede to your experience in this matter over mine. Also, per your recent edit to the article, thank you for filling out the section with more sources. That was probably going to be the bigger issue as just one source would have made the section weak and self-serving. Cheers. DonQuixote (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * you're right about the word "notable" being incorrect. The general feeling at WP:RSN has been that Master's theses are not reliable sources. I think the word DonQuixote is looking for is "significant" - is this view discussed in clearly reliable mainstream sources - see WP:UNDUE. Sorry to drop in here but "Dr. Who" and MA caught my eye. Additionally the "MA" is from Signum University which is online only and not accredited yet. It does sound interesting though, see Corey Olsen.  Doug Weller  talk 14:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Good work
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&#124;Talk 17:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

STOP
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)
 * Stop adding content that is prohibited by policy. From WP:USERG: 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)

A View To A Kill editing mistake
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)

Shaft
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)
 * The articles should be written from a real world perspective and don't need to be retconned every time the movies are. The subsequent retcons can be mentioned in the respective movies that they occur. DonQuixote (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that the full article makes the statement but it just bothers me that the brief summary states as fact something that is no longer fact.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a fact--it's a work of fiction. In the 2000 movie, he's Shaft's uncle. In the 2019 movie, he's retconned as Shaft's father. Those are two facts that are 100% true. DonQuixote (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the fact is the 2019 film says the claim he was the uncle was a lie. A footnote in the article about the 2019 movie seems to state this. Am I misinterpreting something? I was reading a newspaper article that said this and haven't watched the movie.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting the importance of in-universe perspective. Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective. It doesn't matter to the 2000 movie that in the 2019 movie that Shaft I is Shaft II's father because the 2000 movie came out about 20 years before the 2019 movie. DonQuixote (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't really see anything that applied here by clicking on that link, but as long as both main articles have the information, I guess that should be enough.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Describing aspects of the work as if they were real.
 * That sums it up, actually.
 * Also 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)
 * It's wrong to treat Shaft as a real person with a real history in the main articles too. Shaft is a fictional character who in the 2000 movie is Shaft II's uncle. He also appears in the 2019 movie as Shaft II's father with an in-joke retcon. See Lena Luthor for a similar retcon. DonQuixote (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, see Chuck Cunningham and Judy Winslow. DonQuixote (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would most definitely disagree with leaving out the facts from the movie articles. And you have to include the facts in the sections of articles about those two characters. Anyway, I'm leaving my computer until tomorrow.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The facts aren't being left out of the movie articles. That's the point. Encyclopaedias are about facts--not about the made-up continuity of the work of fiction, as explained in MOS:REALWORLD. DonQuixote (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Woman / Spider-Gwen
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)

Happy Birthday JP
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&#124;Talk 17:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Fictional characters can have birth names.
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)
 * Articles about fictional characters should not be written as if it were a biography. They should be written in terms of publication/broadcast (i.e. in terms of the history of the programme). MOS:INUNIVERSE even states 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)