User talk:Fred Bloggs 529

July 2020
Hello, I'm P,TO 19104. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Brain of Morbius, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Brain of Morbius, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.   Blablubbs (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. I'd mentioned the sources in the text but was a little tired ay the time. Citations now added following guidelines. Fred Bloggs 529 (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The Brain of Morbius. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonQuixote (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources cited. The information was incomplete on this section as nothing was made of the controversy generated by the inclusion of the Morbius faces in The Timeless Child. The sources cited support the long-held traditional viewpoint and fan consensus that these faces were always that of Morbius.

As Wikipedia is a public forum anyone can add legitimatey and properly sourced information to a page that supports what is being said. I had initially included them in the text. Fred Bloggs 529 (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I have put it on again as it adds balance to the continuity. The interpretation of this in The Timeless Child is not universally accepted. What I have said is relevant to how the story has been viewed for a long time. Sources have been cited to support facts. What exactly is the issue here? This shouldn't be one-sided. Fred Bloggs 529 (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You would need to cite a reliable source that says anything like what you're trying to write, such as
 * However, this is very controversial. Since its original broadcast the general fan consensus has always been that those faces were of Morbius particularly with those who were faithful to the "classic" series they grew up with.
 * The story establishes early on that Morbius went further back in history than the Doctor, leading a rebellion against the Time Lord's and starting a war. Moreso, when the machine on which they're battling malfunctions, it is Morbius's brain that overloads suggesting very much that the Doctor was successful in pushing Morbius back to his beginning.
 * Hinchcliffe may have wished to imply that it was the Doctor but he and Holmes, as script editor never took it seriously and the BBC did not support the idea, otherwise this would have been written more intentionally. This is not a strong foundation on which to build a theory.
 * Also, see identifying reliable sources, due weight and false balance. DonQuixote (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional citations have been added that back these things up. Fred Bloggs 529 (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reddit is not considered a reliable source.
 * Also, a word of advice, tertiary sources, like wikipedia, work by reading what reliable sources have to say and then summarising them. Tertiary sources do not work by writing an original piece of work and then scrounging around for reliable sources to back up the original work. DonQuixote (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no scrounging around. I was stating facts with appropriate references. The Reddit reference was an illustration of fan opinion on this. As someone who's worked in education for a long time and been involved in research, I'm not a novice. This does seem as if deliberate stumbling blocks are being put in the way. Fred Bloggs 529 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reddit is not considered a reliable source in any way for tertiary sources. What you're doing is trying to write for a secondary source. You can use Reddit as a source if you're writing for a secondary source because original research is allowed in secondary sources. Tertiary sources, like encyclopaedias and textbooks, are specifically summaries of secondary sources and aren't places for original research. If you publish what you're trying to write in a secondary source, then wikipedia, as a tertiary source, can cite your work and summarise it. Please do not reinsert your original research that isn't supported by any secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, be aware of WP:3RR and discuss on talk page as suggested in WP:BRD. DonQuixote (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See the guidelines on primary, secondary and tertiary sources, identifying reliable sources and user generated content to start. DonQuixote (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)