User talk:Man of wealth and taste

Robot
Hi. Per WP:CITE, everything must be verified now (see this message from the site founder). Could I ask you to remove the material about Robot that you just added to Planet of the Dead, please? Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 08:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The material I added states one thing that can be verified by watching the episode, and another thing that can be verified by multiple sources. It's phrased to be verifiable.  Man of wealth and taste (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the phrase again. You can't use Wikipedia as it's own source, and you are attempting to use implicit verification - we need explicit, external reliable sources to verify this information. Until that happens, it should stay off the page. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, no, I'm not using Wikipedia as a source. The title of the Robot novelisation has been on record for several decades – I have provided a citation for that.   What Malcolm says in the episode can be verified by watching the episode. Man of wealth and taste (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I get the impression you don't understand what we are getting at here. What we need is a source to link the two episodes - providing sources for each episode is fine, but they do not explicitly link the two episodes. Without an explicit linker source, we cannot have that statement in.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 08:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what you're getting at. I just happen to think you're wrong – this is simply the juxtaposition of two verifible statements.  Man of wealth and taste (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is called synthesis. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. You are joining A (the reference in the episode) with B (the title of the book) to say C - that the one is based on the other.
 * True, you're not directly saying that. But you are either intentionally implying that (which is synthesis) or simply noting a coincidence (which is trivia and irrelevant, and should be removed). ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By means of a further example; I could put a note into the article to say, "Captain Magambo says that she has a duty to every man, woman and child - a phrase also used in Deuteronomy 31:12." That obviously shouldn't go in, as there's no source to say that the episode was deliberately referencing the Bible, and pointing out things that happen to have been said before is never going to be constructive.
 * Finally finally, I'd like to point out that in total, three editors disagree with your interpretation of policy; one of them is an admin. I would ask that you respect this consensus, as well as the BRD process. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 13:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The trivia guideline you linked says this: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." And it is information that I seek to present here, as opposed to speculation about "four knocks", for example. However, I am going to let this go.  I have a search subscription running to keep an eye out for the kind of source you and JGXenite seem to want, and will re-adress the material once one appears.  Man of wealth and taste (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, great. I wouldn't be too confident that a reliable source confirming the reference will be published, but thanks anyway. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 13:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * £5 says I'm merely being sufficiently confident. Man of wealth and taste (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 08:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. ''See WP:SYN, WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Please'' ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 08:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. There was no original research.  Man of wealth and taste (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 08:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you continue to ignore our requests for discussion about this, I've reported you for 3RR violations and edit warring.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 08:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked both you and TreasuryTag for 24 hours for edit warring on Planet of the Dead. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems a random choice, given the response here. I don't care whether you unblock me, but...  Man of wealth and taste (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * TreasuryTag has just been unblocked. If you put in an unblock request (using ) then you should also be unblocked.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 15:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of requesting your unblock for you, since we were/are in exactly the same boat, so to speak. Hope you don't mind! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What edits I would've made today can be made tomorrow. I'm not presently in a hurry. 15:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're unblocked; It isn't right being blocked after being warned. Though I would caution to respect our policies in the future to avoid such incident. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do that already. Man of wealth and taste (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)