User talk:Robinhoodph

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 18:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Also, since I forgot to add this to the end of the template, even if you know something personally, sources are necessary, such as with the production section on Robin and the Hood Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 18:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * i was there to see it with my own eyes i cant cite that Robinhoodph (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you can't cite it, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. An important part of Wikipedia's design is that a reader should be able to trace content to a reliable source, to confirm that it is correct. As another editor told you even if you know something personally, sources are necessary. It's not that Wikipedia thinks you are lying or are wrong, it's just that you have to help Wikipedia vouch for your edit.  signed, Willondon (talk)  18:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Often things that are cited are incorrect. Unless a wikipedia page is an important topic of research. People can figure out whether something is true or not just by what is written down. Nobody wastes their time writing things down that are incorrect. They only do it by mistake. This page is not important to be correct when not cited. Robinhoodph (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Deadpool 3 edits
Why have my edits been undone when my edits were correct. Robinhoodph (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to X-Men (film series), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. —El Millo (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Zsinj. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Richard Dawkins, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ZsinjTalk 17:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I dont know how to do citations but I could tell you where i got them from so you can do it on my behalf and would kindly reinstate my additions. He said he has voted lib dem "all his life" in a poetry of reality video called "is religion inevitable". He said he only drinks alcohol with food early on in the video with bill maher on the club random podcast. The earliest record of the word designoid is from dawkins' christmas lecture, "is the universe designed" on his poetry of reality podcast video. So he did coin the word atleast rather than popularise it. If you search the word on the Internet only dawkins is referenced. It is shown and stated he enjoys music in the youtube video called "freethought matters - richard dawkins". I cant remember where he said that a female doctor who is a loss of a role model for boys but he did for certain. It might of been in an old tweet in 2017. In a more recent tweet last year he tweets he watches cricket. Robinhoodph (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that many of the sources you have mentioned are primary sources, i.e. videos that show Dawkins saying something, even about himself. But secondary sources are what's needed to indicate notability. Not every little thing that can be verified should be in the article. If a secondary source, say a documentary, or a magazine article on diets and hobbies of popular scientists, draws on the primary sources and makes some commentary on, or simply reports the facts, then do we have some indication that it is notable, and perhaps has some value for the article.  signed, Willondon (talk)  18:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If something said from someone willingly on camera isnt enough when its not a deepfake, I dont know what is. Robinhoodph (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You cant get better certification than that. Robinhoodph (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The point is that verification isn't the only thing that sources do, they also help to establish notability. Not everything that can be verified should be in an encyclopedia. So Wikipedia also relies on reliable secondary sources as an indication that something is notable.  signed, Willondon (talk)  18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well wikipedia is wrong. Whats notibility. I know you agree with me Robinhoodph (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Richard Dawkins. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Mlkj (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Richard Dawkins. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. ''PLEASE respect the original citation format. Don't throw in some bare URL. Also, the stuff you added--it's just not well-written, and this is a GA.'' Drmies (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, if you don't know how to do citations, learn how to do citations please. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * My edits are just as valuable as anyone elses. You cant just undo somebodys work without a discussion. Just because you dont understand what I wrote it doesnt mean im wrong. I said that mentioning god as a fictional character rather than atheism is a good addition because there are many other mentions of atheism in this article but no mention of god being fictional. What do you mean its not good writing, this isnt Shakespeare and your the one that said "bare" like some guy in the hood. The spelling is correct and the sentence has meaning. It is not a random remark it is literally about what the previous sentence was about which I didnt write. The citation is very clear, why would you want to undo that, thats the point of wikipedia. You havent even watched the video to see if its correct which it is. Robinhoodph (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the most valuable survival skill for a person discovering for themselves a society with a developed system of conventions and guidelines is to be sensitive to signs that your actions are going against the grain. Myself, I've twice reverted your rephrasing of "atheism", . Above, I've also expressed thoughts on the usefulness of primary vs. secondary sources, addressing your use of Twitter posts and YouTube videos. But you just argued that Wikipedia is wrong and took the liberty of suggesting I know you agree with me. And now another seasoned editor has taken the time to take you to task. Wikipedia editors comprise a community, and you are part of the community, but if you can't understand other editors' opinions and where they come from, and continue to edit on your merry way, you won't be. We welcome your valuable additions, and expect that you will understand when we don't think your edits are an improvement, or if not understand at least accept.  signed, Willondon (talk)  04:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not citated a youtube video in any of my edits on there now nor twitter My aim was for more seasoned editors as yourself to add citations to what ive put up. The tweet ive citated is the only source that exists. Am just supposed to leave it out? It is also a tweet from the makers of the video. Why would something from the hourses mouth not be good enough. Youve reverted my atheism twice but that doesnt mean your right and you havent explained why you are. You dont have the right to revert someones work without a discussion regardless of expertise. Your a seasoned editor but that doesnt make you a seasoned thinker. Robinhoodph (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they certainly have the right to revert your contributions, see WP:Bold, revert, discuss.
 * It is completely unacceptable to add content with the expectation that others will clean up your mess, as you have suggested above and what has had to happen anyway.
 * For the time being, you should stop editing the article directly, because it is very clear that you don't understand what you are doing and you don't check the effect of your changes before you commit them. For example, with this edit, you removed the references section and only a safety net in the system saved a high-profile article from becoming unreadable. Use the talk page to propose any changes you think need to be made and watch and learn from how they are done (if they are done: if not, the discussion will tell you why not). If you persist in your disruptive editing, you should expect to be blocked from editing any live pages. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I didnt say clean up my mess I meant add a different new citation to the already legitamate one I put there. I thought people build on other peoples work. Your trying to trip me up. That edit was a mistake which is the only one that could mistakenly be interpreted as distruptive. Ive not done distruptive editing as all intended edits have been of good faith. I have the right to revert other peoples changes too. People have been incredibly nasty too me with no rational explanation, provokation or justification. A single mistake isnt multiple deliberate vandalisms. Robinhoodph (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BRD: you may not revert arbitrarily. If your edit is reverted, use the talk page to request an explanation. It is pointless to make essentially the same edit again. We all began by making mistakes but the essential part that you seem to have missed is to learn from your mistakes. If you don't know why it was a mistake, you can't learn from it, so ask. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Civility
Civility dealing with other editors is required if your editing priveleges are to be continued. These comments, are unacceptable. No matter how much you may disagree, incivility will eventually result in a block. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits to The Doctor (Doctor Who)
Hi!

I recently made some edits to the Doctor page, notably some basic copyediting/formatting to make it readable — though I also added context for some things and removed things with no basis in canon.

I see you have reversed most of my edits with a comment of "this is the perfect version" and "everything can be defended". This is after undoing both my edits for clarity and precision, as well as my edits for readability.

The regeneration capacity WAS limited to twelve by a later version of Tecteun, as shown in the episode and as I put in my edit summary. Additionally, I wasn't able to find much basis for them "attempting to lower the Doctor's intelligence" but only being "partially successful", so I removed it.

Use of neutral pronouns to refer to Tecteun is accurate, as we know that it was their second incarnation, a male one, who started grafting regeneration into the Shobogans, and we don't know about more incarnations. It is inaccurate to say "she" when referring to anything past their first incarnation.

As well as this, you reverted my clarity and syntax edits — something I don't quite get. I wasn't attempting to change your work too much, I was making it more readable and succinct. There isn't a need to revert those.

Is there any particular reason for this? I wanted to talk to you before making any edits so we can work something out. Zolohyr (they/them) (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Its irrelevant who restricted the regeneration limit and makes the paragraph longer to read. Theres many thingd that are shown to be canon in the episode the timeless child that doesnt need to be mentioned. The pronouns are confusing when two different people are called they. You cant tell how many people there are or which they person your talking about. In my version the pronouns she are used until the Doctor regenerates into a boy and then the they pronoun is used when tecteun is out of the Picture making it simpler to understand. It has been mentioned elsewhere and not in the episode the canon bits you dont recognise. Also the whole canon change Chris chibnall has added is complete rubbish and makes no sense. Thats why it wasnt in the character biography bit because it was so bad. I decided to put it there. Embellishing things or making thingd up to salvage the timeless child wouldn't be a bad thing. No sane person thinks its a good addition as it is. For example how unlikely would it be that the Doctor left gallifrey called herself the Doctor, got the chamelion circuit stuck as a police box. And then later it all happened again the exact same way by chance with the first Doctor. The instinctual drives explains it away perfectly. What I did has been edited since by someone else. As i said before every word chosen can be defended flawlessly. 217.155.214.190 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * this was me Robinhoodph (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would not say it "can be defended flawlessly".
 * - The person who restricted the regeneration limit is, in this case, relevant. The sentence mentions how the Time Lords were "restricted" to twelve. A reader might want to know how, and by whom, that restriction was put in place. It does not add very much length to the paragraph, and helps clarity and availability of information within the article.
 * - Even if the use of the pronoun "they" for both the Doctor and Tecteun becomes confusing to read, your solution is not a solution at all. The solution to that problem would be one of copyediting — reformatting the sentences to be more clear as to whom they refer. Using the pronoun "she" when referring to an incarnation of Tecteun past First is inaccurate, and accuracy should not be sacrificed for readability. WP:Accuracy. This sentence, in the way you have worded it, implies the incarnation of Tecteun referred to is female. This is not the case, as we know they were inducted into the Division after having regenerated at least once during the grafting process.
 * Moreover, your argument that the use of "they" for both Tecteun and the Doctor leaves room for confusion is not relevant to the specific mention you edited. "Tecteun and their child" does not leave much ambiguity as to whom the pronoun refers.
 * - If we are discussing elements and sentences that serve nothing but to add length to the paragraph, your mention of the Doctor's intelligence making them a "unique cleverest in the room individual" does not add much to the article. It is barely, if ever, mentioned in the programme and is not very relevant to a reader of the article. It is, however, stated in canon that the Doctor is not as intelligent as other Time Lords — Romana stated that he graduated the Academy with a 51%. They're wise, incredibly so, but not particularly intelligent as compared to their species.
 * - The changes made to the canon during Chris Chibnall's run as writer were controversial, yes, but that does not mean they do not exist. We as editors serve to provide information accurate to verifiable sources. This, as it so happens, includes episodes of the series. Your addition of information that isn't available in the canon of the show is not in line with this psychology.
 * My intention with this analysis is not to undermine the work you put into editing the page. It is to show that even if you personally believe an edit to be the "perfect version", that is not always true. That is why Wikipedia is a community of editors: so discussions can be had for greater improvements to be made. Zolohyr (they/them) (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes wikipedia is multiple people editing, im not saying the edit i did was perfect because I did it, its perfect for whoever did it like the way i did. It is about the Doctor not tecteun, theres a line as to what you include. The limit being by tectuen is not needed to understand. Half of it doesnt make sense if you dont know what Doctor who is. Just as what color tecteuns space ship isnt needed. Besides its supposed to be brief so they can look the episode up. The pronoun thing you can correct after ive edited if I do. Its so confusing they is plural. Theres nobody with a they sex. He/she is better in writing. The Doctor being unique cleverest in the room is needed to fix plot holes created by the timeless child. Although info ive added is not directly stated in the episode it is inferred and inferred to being the only answer. The Doctor is the cleverest time lord, its the doctor, childrens hero, why would u want him dumb? The Robinhoodph (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nearly none of what you're saying is a good editing policy, nor is it in line with Wikipedia policies — stuff like verifiability, accuracy, and quite a few others. Edits you make under these assumptions will not be constructive to how Wikipedia intends to function and to provide information. It also dismisses non-binary people. Singular they is preferred in formal writing by most institutions, as well as the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
 * The extra information about Tecteun is relevant in this case as it relates to the Time Lords and their regeneration cycle.
 * You cannot state inferences as fact, especially on a place like Wikipedia where people expect accurate, verifiable information.
 * Your argument that the Doctor shouldn't be dumb doesn't outweigh the canon evidence that they aren't as intelligent as their peers.
 * Please do not re-edit the section under these assumptions. It would go against Wikipedia's values, policies, and intentions. Zolohyr (they/them) (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course the Doctor is more intelligent, that was just qualifications. The fact that he fled gallifrey implies he probably didnt put any effort into it. If someone travelled from london to birmingham in 4 hours yet it wasnt stated how in a TV episode. Nobody would have a problem with someone adding the fact of travel by train. What genitalia does a non binary person have? Robinhoodph (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't have any interest in accepting any answer but the conclusion you already drew. I won't be continuing this thread.
 * Please re-evaluate your personal biases, policies, and mindset before editing the section again. Zolohyr (they/them) (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do, your just wrong and dont like it. The fact you havent replied shows you know you have no argument. Robinhoodph (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What, the 5,000 characters of arguments that you failed to acknowledge don't count? To answer your question, yes. People would call it inaccurate if you stated it was by train. Because it would be inaccurate. Zolohyr (they/them) (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply add things to Wikipedia to fix plot holes and claim them to be fact. Even if, in your personal opinion, you think it would be better if what you have written was true, that is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Articles should ONLY include real, genuine information, not things that you have made up. It doesn't matter what we as editors want, or what we as viewers would prefer, the only thing that matters is objective fact, unless clearly marked as an inference. Furthermore, just because someone happens to be a "hero", or the main character, does not mean that they are automatically the most intelligent person, you cannot claim this as fact when you have no evidence for it.
 * The edit which you made that this thread refers to does not add anything of value to the article, makes up tenuous links between things which are essentially your theories instead of fact, and degrades the grammatical quality substantially with poor word choice and phrases such as "a unique cleverest in the room individual" which is simply grammatically incorrect in multiple ways.
 * As Zolohyr has said, it would go against Wikipedia's values, policies, and intentions to continue making similar edits based on assumptions and what you personally feel "should have happened". Reading through this talk page, it would appear you have a history of similar complaints about your edits. I recommend that you review how you edit Wikipedia and take the advice that others have repeatedly given you here. Thank you. JaguarSympathy (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The evidence for it is that many behind the scenes people of Doctor who say hes the cleverest person in the room like RTD and matt smith. Also the evidence is overwhelming that he is since he always wins. This isnt someone, this is the Doctor. The whole point of the character is that he is is cleverest in the room. You need to watch dr who. Also he might of got bad grades because he was lazy. As i have said the info ive put in is fact because its the only possible conclusion to make. They arent theories. Somones personal opinion can be objectivly true. And the fact that you go and look at previous discussions on my page shows you dont care about making good edits but just enjoy having a go. like zolhyr. You cant argue ive made "tenous links" when you dont even understand why ive reached those conclusions. Try and tell me why i wrote what I wrote. I bet youll get it wrong. Theres millions of articles on wikipedia to edit, yet you come against my edits and you dont even know if they are wrong. You clearly dont have a passion for dr who but like to bully. All this is pretty much true for zolhyr too. Robinhoodph (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your blatant, bigoted, personal attacks as well as your disruptive editing style. Thank you. Zolohyr (they/them) (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)