User talk:Transformeddispute

November 2015
Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 03:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So what the hell? You ask me to login and the accuse me of logging in to hide me editing history? I'm trying to be civil with you, but you are pushing it.Transformeddispute (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Point to where I asked you to log in. I asked you to sign your posts. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  03:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AND I HAVE BEEN.Transformeddispute (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Now you have. But you're still edit warring. Your edit warring from when you were logged out doesn't simply "disappear" or "rest". Look at the article history of the articles you are affecting, and tell me how many times you've removed the content (logged in OR out). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  03:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And you're edit warring. Worse, as you refuse to discuss on the Talk Page. There has been a standing point made about the information on the Witch's Familiar Page since October 1st. I was asked to take my point there several days ago and I did. No response. Without actual participation, your arguments are irrelevant, and your edit warring intolerable. If you don't want an edit war, PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION!Transformeddispute (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm reverting to the status quo. And I'll get around to the discussion. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  03:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And when you decide to participate, you can change the article. until then, I'm not listening to you anymore. the discussion has been available for days - months if you count the original complainant. Wikipedia does not wait for you, nor should it. Be bold.Transformeddispute (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Continue to revert, and you may/will be reported and blocked. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  03:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Report me then. I will challenge it. Or you could just participate in discussion.Transformeddispute (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, Transformeddispute, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 03:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The hell are you on about now? I have posted without an account, and created an account at your request? What is your logic on today's petty accusation?Transformeddispute (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Never said to create an account. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  07:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous semantic games. You said to sign in, which required the creation of an account. I obliged. Now you accuse me of using multiple accounts or conspiring with others outside of Wikipedia? Why? Because I disagree with you?Transformeddispute (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Never said to sign in either. Said to sign your posts. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * More semantic games. Obviously I am not as versed in the language of Wikipedia as you are. If you cannot parse obvious and basic meaning and apply it as appropriate, then you are fundamentally broken. Maybe this is the only way you know how to save face? Whatever. You're embarrassing yourself. Stay off my page in the future, and take your unfounded and petty accusations with you. I'm done with you.Transformeddispute (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems you can't understand. I literally told you how to sign your posts on your IP talk page. Can't read basic content? Unfortunate. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you can't understand when you're told to fuck off. I get it, you're a troll and this is what turns you on. Sorry, not interested in your foreplay. You're playing games because you can't actually address the topic, you can't back up your childish accusations, and you can't stand that you're wrong. Whatever. Bye.Transformeddispute (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 14:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You're not welcome here. You know this. Post here and you will be greeted in accordance with the spirit you bring, which is toxic.Transformeddispute (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Users are allowed to warn. You broke the rules. Your fault, kiddo. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're harassing another user and you reap what you sow. It's clearly been your intent the entire time, as you've not actually managed once to bring a credible argument to the table for discussion. You bait, you accuse, you play semantic games.Transformeddispute (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, so I'm harassing you by responding to your continued comments on MY page? You're not welcome here, you've been told this repeatedly, all you've done is play games. I asked you over and over to deal with issues on the relevant discussion pages and you never contributed, instead just edit warring and lobbing false accusations that you clearly cannot back up. You are toxic. Stay away. And if I'm not bringing anything to the table for discussion, why are other people agreeing with me? Take a look, maybe you will learn how to engage in civil discussion? maybe you might learn how to properly contribute? You seem to have problems with that. Now once again - GO AWAY.Transformeddispute (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * K. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Witch's Familiar
Greetings, Transformeddispute.

Thank you for agreeing to have a civil Talk regarding the Killing Joke reference. This reference was originally one of my contributions to the article, and after I found more than one reference to it online, I made sure that it was included. This has stood up to scrutiny until your objection.

I do want to start off by asking why, specifically, you have such a vehement objection to this reference. Please don't simply say "Oh, it's not relevent" or "It's not that clear." Other commentators/reviewers have noticed the reference as well as I did, and these are sources I've used before in other articles on Wiki. So, as this has been properly sourced and vetted, it should stand. So I'd like to know what your particular, specific objections are.

Let me know when you can and we'll continue this. Thanks for the reply.

Ooznoz (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Ooznoz


 * Glad to see you here. So my issue is basically this: We have no conclusive evidence the scene is intentionally referential. Is it similar? Sure. But it's also similar to any scene that might have two enemies finding common ground and relating to one another, however briefly. Even Sonic the Hedgehog has a moment like that with Robotnik. It's a trope, and one that did not originate with Killing Joke. There was even a moment like that with Kirk and an enemy in the original Star Trek back in the 60's - 20 years behfore Moore wrote his version. So, is this moment in Doctor Who a reference? Or is it coincidence? Does the fact that the reviewers find the scene reminiscent make it a fact? I don't see how. In this era you can source just about anything when it comes to opinions in fiction, so sourcing alone is not really as valuable as people might like. The connection between the two works does not definitively pass the logic test as we have no way of knowing if it is actually a reference, or if you and the reviewers and anyone else just happen to think it's a reference.


 * I'd take the same objection with anything similar. It's essentially opinion and original research.Transformeddispute (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. No, we have no idea of the writer's intent, if it was inspired by Moore or just a coincidence. And yes, there is a trope of enemies finding common ground and laughing together. I don't know anything about Sonic the Hedgehog, but your Star Trek reference -- The Day of the Dove -- is of humans and Klingons laughing together at a common foe to drive it away. Not quite the same thing as what happens in Killing Joke & Witch's Familiar.

Break down both scenes. Both have two enemies who have been at each other's throats for all of their relationship (see the Prolog to The Magician's Apprentice for a great remark about that). Both have the two share a heart-to-heart moment. Both have the bad guy crack a joke, and the good guy pause to take it in, then start laughing. Then both share a laugh together. This is not a typical trope in hero/villain relations.

Remember, I wrote that the scene is 'similar' to the Killing Joke, not a direct lift from it. Also, it is an outside reference to an unrelated work to Doctor Who. And, others have noticed and agree with the similarity -- my sources. This is not original research, but a common notice of influence.

To be continued. :)

Ooznoz (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Ooznoz the similarity


 * Quick note - that actually wasn't the scene in Star Trek I was thinking of. It was one where Kirk was brawling with someone. Can't remember the details specifically enough though. I will agree that stating that the scene is "similar" is fair. I thought it was similar too. But does that warrant inclusion? And it's in a section titled "references". But is it a reference? And if it isn't, should it be in that section?Transformeddispute (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The post-modernist trope of Batman actually laughing with the Joker at one of his jokes -- really joining in with him and sharing a moment -- is rather atypical and not really seen in other hero/villain stories. That the Doctor and Davros do something very similar is noteworthy, which I and others have indeed noted, and should be referenced. Again, there's no direct evidence that that was the writer's intent, but there's also no evidence that it wasn't.

It looks like we're each exhausting our arguments, and I will agree to disagree with you. Still, others agree with me rather than you -- no disrespect intended -- and the reference needs to stand.

It's been a pleasure, and if you have anything further about this, let me know and we can Talk.

Hope we can collaborate and/or debate in the future. Take it easy.

Ooznoz (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Ooznoz


 * I appreciate the open discussion, though I don't think the topic is quite exhausted yet. I wasn't actually the only person (or the first) on the talk page to raise objection to the inclusion. There is also a similar discussion going on in the talk section of the episode Face the Raven that you may want to weigh in on (though that one is more specifically about continuity). Regardless, I'm not going to change it again without some kind of formal consensus, and only had previously continued to edit out the info in the face of another editor who refused to partake in discussions. I'm all for civility here. Thanks!Transformeddispute (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)