User talk:DonQuixote/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use of small-caps ("A Blighted Life" on wikisource)

Did you know you could use something else instead of all the "small" tags within your code to create the small-caps spellings? All that is required is <font style="font-variant:small-caps;">.

instead of: "THE BLIGHTED LIFE," and Lady LYTTON

use: "The Blighted Life," and Lady Lytton

This produces better code which is easier to read (and proper xML markup):

:''instead of:'' "T<small>HE</small> B<small>LIGHTED</small> L<small>IFE</small>,"
 ''and'' [[wikipedia:Rosina Bulwer Lytton|Lady L<small>YTTON</small>]]

:''use:'' <font style="font-variant:small-caps;">"The Blighted Life,"</font>
 ''and'' [[en:Rosina Bulwer Lytton|Lady <font style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lytton</font>]]

One added benefit is that copy-and-paste from the web page into a text editor does not produce odd capitalization. In other words, copy-and-paste each of those two lines and the resulting text looks like this:

instead of: "THE BLIGHTED LIFE," and Lady LYTTON
use: "The Blighted Life," and Lady Lytton

Notice the second line has normal capitalization. —Mike 07:13, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson

As I'm sure you can tell I've been fairly hard at work setting up a section for Emily Dickinson. She's one of my favorite poets. I have a question... you've changed the titles (in this case first lines) of some of the works to titles that are incorrect. I'm wondering what your source is? Here is one example...

1.) You changed ("Sic transit gloria mundi,") to (Sic gloria transit mundi)

If you check Collected Poems of Emily Dickinson ISBN: 0517362422 or The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson ISBN: 0316184136 you will see that the first title is the excepted standard. I just wanted to bring this to your attention because I believe that the link should be correct and the information should be correct. However I did not want to move it without speaking to you or edit over what you had done. Will you mind my correcting these? --Khaldei 21:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image tags

Thanks for uploading Image:Ladder paradox contraction.png, Image:Ladder paradox garage irf1.png, Image:Ladder paradox garage irf2.png, Image:Ladder paradox ladder irf1.png and Image:Ladder paradox ladder irf2.png. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got (or made) the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, grendel|khan 05:07 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Doctor Who Restoration Team

Are you doing anything with this? Right now it's just a link and it's been tagged for speedy deletion. If you are, put up the {{inuse}} tag and work it up to at least stub level. --khaosworks 02:45, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Image:TheDoctorMoniteredByCybermen.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:TheDoctorMoniteredByCybermen.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

It's a duplicate of Image:TheDoctorMonitoredByCybermen.jpg --Tim Pope 12:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ladder paradox

Thanks for your contributions at Ladder paradox and especially the illustrations. I've just uploaded Image:Ladder paradox garage irf2.png and Image:Ladder paradox ladder irf2.png to commons:. Without any text in the pictures themselves, they are ideal candidates for use in several Wikipedias. --Pjacobi 19:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Page Redesign

I, Mollsmolyneux, have redesigned the List of incomplete Doctor Who serials page. To view it please Click Here. Please leave any comments you have about the page on My Talk Page and tell me if you think I should put the page on. -- Mollsmolyneux 12:51, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:HyperbolicMotion.PNG

{| align="CENTER" style="background-color:#FFFFFF; border:8px solid #FF0000; padding:5px;" |- |

|

This media may be deleted.

|}

Thanks for uploading Image:HyperbolicMotion.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Rindler coordinates

Hi, Don, I have completely rewritten this from scratch with completely new figures. I still think the second figure in the old version is wrong and the first one is misleading; similarly for the text. I did keep an archive of the previous version (see the talk page), but I hope you agree that the new version is much better. ---CH 04:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

King Arthur project collaboration

The King Arthur Project has begun a collaboration to bring its main article, King Arthur, to WP:FA status. If you wish to contribute, please review the to-do list on its talk page. Let's make this article an FA! Wrad 03:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the thoughts on your user page

Hello DonQuixote. I came across your user page because of your post to the Doctor Who wikiproject talk page about the editing of shows for commercials and you are so right. Great huge chunks of what I enjoyed on first viewing of many US shows are gone in repeats. Thank goodness for DVD's restoring these scenes. But the main reason that I had to leave a note is your comment on the mundane boxes leading one to the world of the fantastic that you posted on your page. I would add one more (though it doesn't quite fit in to your original thought). The monolith from 2001 also leads a more primitive human mind into new realms. My favorite piece of fancruftiness is to point out that the knowledge that comes from the monolith teaches primitive man how to kill and the knowledge from those in the TARDIS (a few weeks or years later) restores their ability to make fire. The fact that Stanley was living and working in England when "An Unearthly Child" and the next three episodes aired has always made me wonder if he might have seen them and had even the slightest scintella of a memory of them when he came to create the "Dawn of Man" sequence for his film (utter rot to most but a fun thought for me). My apologies for taking up your time and many thanks for the ideas expressed on your user page :-) Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 04:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Hey, I love the quotes on your userpage, but who are they from? Just curious. Great job so far, happy editing! - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 04:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh!!! They sounded professional. Like real ones by some famous writer that everyone reads about in English class. Well, good job with your quotes. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 05:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Menoptra.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Menoptra.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1 != 2 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wenham Lake Ice Company

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wenham Lake Ice Company, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Wenham Lake Ice Company. Rtphokie 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Poll

Quick, hurry over to the "Time Crash" discussion page and register your vote for "The Doctor!!"

Blaine Blaine Coughlan (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ageism and sexism

Regarding your accusations on Talk:Donna_Noble#Age, I'd just like to let you know that I am personally offended by your accusations. Ageism and sexism? For starters, as another editor has pointed out, no reference was made to gender - that rules out sexism. As for ageism, to note that one person is older than another is simply not demonstrating prejudice. It was hardly as if I wrote 'Catherine Tate was older than David Tennant and this is wrong because older actors should be retired away to a retirement home.' So, no, my statements did not smack of ageism or sexism. No bias was shown. Removal on grounds of trivia is fine. To be accused of ageism and sexism is plain wrong. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry you're wrong. The simple fact is that stating one actor is older than another is not an act of ageism. No part of my statements were ageist. To talk about age is not ageism. To discriminate against someone because of their age, to show prejudice against someone because of their age or to express hatred towards someone because of the age is ageist. I did none of these. And where on Earth do you get the sexism idea from? My statements referred to men and women and were not making any disparaging remarks about either gender. It is not a question of whether I intended to or not - I simply did not directly or through implication demonstrate either ageism or sexism. I was merely attempting to note, (though the point has fairly been dismissed on grounds of trivia), that it is not common for the actor playing the companion to be older than the actor playing the Doctor as the Doctor tends to act as a guiding, father or grandfather figure. Other editors have agreed that your accusations are misplaced. I find it offensive that you persist in attempting to smear my reputation by levelling these misplaced accusations at me. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is where you are wrong and are demonstrating sexism yourself. I would have added my comments regarding the respective ages of the actors concerned irrespective of whether the Doctor was played by a man or a woman. Your stance seems to be that Catherine Tate would be offended by someone merely stating she is older than David Tennant. This information is already available on Wikipedia with their dates of births and can be found elsewhere on the Internet, such as on the Internet Movie Database. I did not specify how much older she was merely that she was older, as I did with Gerald Flood, John Barrowman and Kylie Minogue - note the first two are males... - nor did I suggest in any way this was somehow wrong. By your argument, why can't males be offended by a simple age comparison? It's sexist to assume that just women would be offended by such a remark - but as I have tried to explain a mere mentioning that one person is older than another is not grounds for offence. The statements on the Donna Noble/Catherine Tate, Kamelion/Gerald Flood, Jack Harkness/John Barrowman and Astrid Peth/Kylie Minogue pages were removed on grounds that the information I added was trivial in its nature, not that it was demonstrating prejudice. I was merely pointing out the rareity of the sidekick actor being older than the protaganist actor in Doctor Who. I have nothing wrong with this and my statements did not suggest in any way this was wrong. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The statements were made irrespective of Tate's gender. I may well have originally added the statements after the announcement of Donna as a full-time companion, (I can't remember if that was what prompted me to back in July), but the fact that I ammended my statements to include Gerald Flood upon realisation that he was older than Peter Davison surely would indicate to you that these statements were not driven by any sexist motivation, rather merely because I happened to realise that it was unusual in the history of Doctor Who for the companion to be played by an actor older than the Doctor. That I happened to notice this first with Catherine Tate is not because she is a woman but because I am more familiar with Catherine Tate owing to her fame and not Gerald Flood, a voice-actor who I doubt I have seen a photo of. That I bothered to check all the ages of the companion actors prior to and after Tate should also indicate to you that there was no gender bias in my statements, simply observed fact comparing ages already in the public domain, (I got their dates of birth from Wikipedia and IMDB). Please stop trying to make out that I am ageist and sexist. I am not. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no grounds for people to find this sexist. I wrote the same for men and women alike. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In the 21st century when men and women are regarded as equal in sensible society in Britain, to make a fuss over my pointing out that a female actor is older than a male actor but to say nothing in defence of the male actors I also noted as being older than a male actor is sexist as you are only leaping to the defence of women and not men. I think you are being ultra-sensitive about this. I cannot imagine anyone being offended by these statements. Considering the statements have been removed not on the grounds that you have issues with them but rather on the grounds that they are trivial, this is a futile argument and I see no point in continuing it further. We clearly will not agree on this issue and to continue sending messages back and forth will be a waste of time for both of us. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use

Please give a fair use criteria for Image:BarbaraInTheAztecs.jpg. A lot of Doctor Who images have gone up for deletion recently, and I don't want to see any more. Thanks. StuartDD _{contributions} 14:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource

Hi, due to an anon user fixing a problem with Supernatural Horror in Literature, I noticed that nobody welcomed you or thanked you for your efforts on Wikisource, so... thank you for your ~400 contributions!

I have made some minor formatting changes to s:Dagon, s:The Tomb and s:Polaris. Feel free to selectively undo parts you don't like. We have started rebuilding periodicals in which these important works first appeared; see s:Littell's Living Age and s:Century Magazine. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheKroll.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheKroll.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BarbaraInTheAztecs.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BarbaraInTheAztecs.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FileUnderImaginationCommaLackOf.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FileUnderImaginationCommaLackOf.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

From Out of the Rain

Please note the entire discussion on the talk page. There's a pretty strong consensus about where the article should sit. In the episode itself, "Out of the Rain" is described in the manner of a place. Neıl ☎ 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

	The Space-Time Telegraph
	The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter
	Issue 1	March 2008
Project News We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002. One editor has left the project: StuartDD. The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33. Articles of note New featured articles None New featured article candidates Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC) New good articles Dalek (Doctor Who episode) Astrid Peth Delisted articles None Proposals A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here. A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here. A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here. News The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope. The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April. For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

Fair use rationale for Image:DoctorAndSandMinerCrew.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DoctorAndSandMinerCrew.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:TheDoctorAndWhiteGuardian.jpg

I have tagged Image:TheDoctorAndWhiteGuardian.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AxonsIntroduceThemselves.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AxonsIntroduceThemselves.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth edit

Sorry I removed your edit, I was trying to correct the mistakes by the other editor which led to several edit conflicts and I must have accidently removed your edits in the process --SoWhy ^Talk 12:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Forest of the Dead edit

Regarding this edit, I thought I would come here and ask you to explain what you meant, as the answer might wander off-topic (and there's been quite a bit of that lately). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if those items were cited to the Discontinuity Guide, they wouldn't be synthesis, which is what a lot of the continuity bits are. There is also the question of notability, too. While a great many things are cited, we have to ask ourselves if we, preparing to go on vacation are packing smart, or packing every damn thing in the closet. Some stuff is just unnecessary, like the wedding dress nonsense. It doesn't drive the plot onward that the dress was re-used. Donna didn't say, 'hey, this is the same wedding dress I wore before', which renders the mention of it in the article as cruft. Things like the squareness gun and such, I don't have a problem with, as they are both cited and a part of the plot. I hope that helps to explain the distinction. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Publicity section at The Next Doctor?

Hey there, you suggested here to work some information in a new section about Publicity and Production. Would you be willing to do so? I replied with another source for that on aforementioned talk page. Regards SoWhy 16:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheDoctorMonitoredByCybermen.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheDoctorMonitoredByCybermen.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the fair use rationale, but I didn't put you in the "author" field because I wasn't sure whether you had made the screencap yourself or found it somewhere else. You can put that info in at your convenience. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:RindlerCoordinates.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RindlerCoordinates.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:RindlerCoordinates2.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RindlerCoordinates2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverts on Companion (Doctor Who)

I am hereby warning you not to revert this article again until consensus can be reached. I suggest you invite WP:WHO members to discuss this issue. Any further revert before there is consensus will be treated as revert-warring and sanctioned. Regards SoWhy 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts on UNIT

I was quite surprised to see that in the middle of a run of dubious edits by IP 92.10.222.40 (seven at this writing) on the article UNIT you, with whom I have previous experience on Dr. Who-related articles and know you operate in good faith, merely "copy-edited" one. Since then the IP's work has moved from dubious to downright destructive, apparently willfully breaking Wikilinks. Not merely de-linking the terms, mind you, but partially removing the brackets to break them. I do not have the ability (as far as I can ascertain, anyway) to revert a series of edits in one move. I ask you to please revert this article back to "last edit by TreasuryTag." --Ted Watson (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Baker

Hi - can you explain why the removal of text regarding audio plays on the Tom Baker page did not require an explanation - specifically why it should be removed without being replaced with a reference to an actual audio play he has been involved in? If you know the information well enough to remove the text, aren't you able to actually put in the correct info? Luminifer (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please add the reference you posted on my talk page to the article, then? :) Luminifer (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Doctorwhoserialnav

Template:Doctorwhoserialnav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack Harkness's kissing ability

Do you know if there's anymore info about his kissing ability? Because the only thing it would make sense for him to have is the immortality, from when Rose brought him back to life, and there's nothing about his kissing in the Doctor Who wiki. --DrBat (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Did Ianto really die? --DrBat (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I never got the impression that Ianto had died and Jack was bringing him back to life. Plus, you'd think if Jack could bring people back to life like that he'd do it a lot more often, and that it would have been more clearly stated in the ep.

Anyway, I've put the topic on the Doctor Who wikiproject --DrBat (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Are you sure about this? --John (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Wiktionary and Allwords.com, which admittedly say it's uncommon, you can google "humourously" to see that it's not a typo. DonQuixote (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

None of these three is a reliable source regarding spelling. Try this, which is. "Humourous(ly)" is not correct in the modern era in any dialect of English. "Labourious", "rigourous" and "glamourous" are errors too. See the rule? No offense, but didn't you learn this when you were at school? --John (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I tend to read older English works which use humourously...but it's still not a typo. DonQuixote (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What is it then? If it's a mistake in the original text, we could use sic, otherwise it needs corrected, as I attempted to do. --John (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to change it because it's an antiquated word, then that's fine. My only concern was that the wrong reason was used -- ie a typo (or mispelling) when it wasn't. DonQuixote (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can agree to differ with you over the semantics, if you won't revert me when I correct it this time. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who Reviews

Could you please explain to me why the reviews I posted are self promotion but the other ones which you didn't delete are not?TOTH42 (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the website being newly created and non-notable, the copyright holders are T.O.T.H. Productions, which is suspiciously similar to your user name. DonQuixote (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

River Song

Hi, thanks for spotting the error in my addition to the River Song page. Would be interested in your feedback on Talk:River_Song_(Doctor_Who) dyve 11:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyve (talk • contribs)

Just in case

Hello DQ. Edit summaries leave so little room to put in a full thought and I did not want you to take offense at the way that I worded my last entry. If the ref that I just added does not meet wikicriteria please take a look at the many items on the Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incident page. Surely one of them will work. IMO there is clear evidence available that the item made the national news so the CN tag should not be required. It would just seem odd to me that we can have one article with multiple examples that an event did occur and then doubt the same event in another article. If you can do anything to improve this situation I would appreciate it. If there isn't anything to be done than so be it. Thanks for your time and again my apologies if I have caused offense. MarnetteD | Talk 11:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put the cn tag there, but as the article proper has at least three references, one of those can be used to replace the cn tag. DonQuixote (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops I didn't mean to imply that you had put it there. I was only referring to the removal of the first item that I had put there to answer the CN tag. I wasn't sure that it was allowed and you confirmed that. Another editor has weighed in on it so I think that all is well. Thanks for the reply and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 15:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Thanks for the info ([1]). I thought I'd seen them on other episodes, but whether or not I did, now that I look, WP:BLOOPERS clearly states that there shouldn't be unless they're major. I'll keep that in mind for any future edits. – RobinHood70 ^talk 05:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Chase

Hi DQ. Thanks for fixing the spelling on the word imperilled on the Doctor Who The Chase story. Unfortunately, you also changed back the the word regraded to regarded. If you read the entire sentence in the reception section you will see that regraded is the correct word. Another editor has already fixed this. Please don't think that I am complaining. I know that you take good care of the DW articles and I do apologize if this message causes offense. I just wanted to make clear that there were two different things that I was trying to do with one edit. I hope that you are looking forward as much to the new episode this Saturday as I am. As someone who started watching the show back in the 80's - where, in the US, we usually had to wait a couple of years to see new stories - it is amazing that I will get to see them the same day as UK broadcasts. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Didn't catch that second one, although I did see the correction after my edit.

And yep, I'm also looking forward to BBC America's airing. Cheers. DonQuixote (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Superman

Who cares about what you think?Brazilian Man (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Er...ok, whatever. But as per policy, it'll be added when you can cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, forgive me. I've got angry because I didn't like the message of the fancy pants who wrote below you.Brazilian Man (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most of my pants are pretty much of the non-fancy type. I never edit Wikipedia in the Truly Fancy Pants. You have to earn that, my little Brazilian friend. The first step to doing so is to not take umbrage at every post - ie. grow a thicker skin. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Derived sexy thing

The episode seems to suggest it. Also the confidencial. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 00:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

At about 31:07...Idris: "I archived them." DonQuixote (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong re... This is about sexy thing not the console room. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 00:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I'm having trouble reading. Anyway, using the episodes is synthesis. If it's mentioned in Confidential, then that can be cited. DonQuixote (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it mentions this on the word but it seems to imply it. PS I'm following this so don't have to leave talkbacks. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 00:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's implied then it's probably interpretation. I haven't seen Confidential yet, so I can't make a judgement on that aspect. But if it were explicitly stated in Confidential, then that could be cited. DonQuixote (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you in the UK? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 00:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Er...where's that from? I just don't choose to watch Confidential regularly. DonQuixote (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think in this episode... I may be wrong http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011820s/Doctor_Who_Confidential_Series_6_Bigger_on_the_Inside/ --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 00:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in Confidential that implies a direct link between the two scenes. So there's nothing that says that one was "derived" from the other. DonQuixote (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, DonQuixote. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Gerardw (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived link: diff

Thanks

Hello DQ. Thanks for fixing my mistake re: The Pyramids of Mars. The minute that I read your edit summary I knoew that I had reversed the two years in my memory when I made my edit. I guess the hot weather here is getting to my "little grey cells" - its good to know that you are around to clean up any errors (mine or anyone elses) that occur. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Season vs. series

Yes, I know there was a bit of a hubbub about it last year, but the matter seems to have been firmly resolved - not just here but for every other British or UK program as 'series' and not season. If you are seeking to initiate a bid to change consensus, there are better venues for doing so. I've initiated discussion on the article discussion page. It was a bold move on your part; now let's talk about it and not mess with the actual article until we've reached a conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs)

Sorry to contradict you, but the "bold move" was the change to "series". The consensus, as a result of the hubbub last year, was to keep it as "season". DonQuixote (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, SoWhy pointed that out to me as well. It's currently being discussed (again, apparently) at DW. Could you point out precisely where the consensus was arrived at that says season instead of series is to be used? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 22#Season or series - Request_for_Comment. DonQuixote (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I will do that, but your initial revert pointed to Archive 18, where no such consensus was apparent. That was why it was reverted; I didn;t see that consensus arising almost a year and half ago. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just scanned the history of the article and forgot about the part in the wikiproject talk page (uncentralised discussion). Anyway, the consensus was to just leave it alone. DonQuixote (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Leave it alone as in don't change series to season, or what? I wasn't understanding you there. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, just leave it as season. DonQuixote (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you could point out where the concenssu was arrived at, link-wise, that would be great. I must be missing it or something. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

After the last post in the above archive, the issue was dropped and no changes were made to the WP:WHO/MOS or to the article in question. DonQuixote (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but your edit is being used to encompass all of the seasons - including the newer seasons, wherein they have been explicitly referred to as a series of episodes. I'm not even addressing the fact that no one in Britain actually uses the term season to refer to a group of episodes. Your edit seems to want to address all of the series as seasons, which isn't covered by the MOS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Er...no. Recheck the edit, which you yourself provided the link to: 1. DonQuixote (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Rory Williams

You should know better than to edit-war on any article such as Rory Williams but since you did edit-war, I'm hereby formally warning you to stop or you will be blocked. The talkpage is there for a reason, so get a consensus there before further editing in this matter. Regards SoWhy 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A piece of Dr Who memorabilia for you

Hello DQ. As a long time editor of Dr Who related articles I wanted to share this with you. In my meanderings around wikipedia I came across this article Aristide Bruant with the accompanying picture by Lautrec. It reminded me of a Dr Who poster that I bought at the 20th anniversary convention in Chicago in 1983 (can 28 years really have gone by?) Unfortunately, it went astray in a long distance move that I endured back in the 90's but thanks to the internet I was able to track down this website [2] which has a picture of it. I enjoy how creative fans of a given show can be and I thought that I would share it with you as we approach the shows 48th anniversary. On another note I think that it is a wonderful quirk of the calendar that, two years from now, the shows 50th anniversary will fall on a Saturday. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 13:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. A cheesburger and a beer from two of my favorite Dr Who editors. Yum yum. This may well be the best wikilunch ever. Have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Robot (Doctor Who)

You recently undid a change I made to this article. Your change is incorrect. From episode 1 of Planet of the Spiders through to episode 4 of Terror of the Zygons (and indeed an argument could be made for extending the run to episode 4 of Planet of Evil) the storyline is continuous. Your assertion therefore that this is the first story of a continuous narrative is completely incorrect. As I don't wish to start an edit war or be the subject of warnings and bans, I respectfully request that you either revert to my edit, or come up with some language that clarifies your edit. As it currently stands, your edit is wrong. TVArchivistUK (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

See Story arcs in Doctor Who#The Ark in Space. DonQuixote (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

May you have a wonderful 2012 and thanks for all you work here at WikiP. Can't wait for another new Dr Who Xmas special this Saturday. MarnetteD | Talk 22:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The curse of the black spot

Hi, can you explain to me why the three main actors names should be mentioned in the aforementioned infobox, the opening section of the article and then the synopsis (or plot) three times seems to be a bit excessive?

Many tanks,

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The intro is a summary of the article, so that's why the actors's names should be mentioned in both the intro and the article proper. The infobox itself, by its very nature, is self-contained and separate from the article. Personally, I think the infobx is just a bit of decoration, but other people seem to like it. DonQuixote (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply - but do you think that it is necessary to have the actors names in three different places in the article when really two places are more than enough in my opinion or do we add "Matt Smith" everytime the Doctor's name is mentioned?

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And message received about the 24 hour reversion block! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphacatmarnie (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the intro is a summary of the article. So given that, there is an unavoidable duplication of information. You can think of them as separate but related. DonQuixote (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be meaningless duplication though!

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just how this encyclopaedia is set up, a self-contained intro that summarises the body of the article and then the body of the article itself. It allows a reader to just read the summary to get the most important information. More detail can then be read in the main body of the article if desired. DonQuixote (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Daleks

Hi DonQuixote (talk). Thanks for your reply to my msg. I'll answer your question here shortly: Metebelis (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. DonQuixote (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to close the loop on this one, though I've moved on well & truly from the above (figuratively & literally). "What happened", as I worked out, was that somehow meaning was imputed to my words that is simply not there. I responded to a stupid comment, and people preferred the stupidity, apparently. My point was always that if he bothered to put links to support his view, he should actually click on it to check it *does* support his view. In this case he hadn't bothered, & the page was no longer as he remembered it. So I made a simple dig and responded to that particular person and his comment. Why others thought it needed any comment from them at all, I'm still at a loss to understand. Disappointing, but Wikipedia's a big place, and there's plenty of other places I can be. Metebelis (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Another thanks

Many thanks for responding to me edit summary and fixing the italics situation on The Five Doctors. I might have guessed that it would be something simple. Just goes to show that there is always something new to learn around here. Thanks again and have a great week on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 15:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

As a followup to the post on the project talk page today I saw this table Doctor Who (season 20)#Serials and I noticed that all stories have quote marks when they should be italicized. I then checked and all these tables do the same thing. I'm guessing that there is a command in the table set up that forces this. If it is something that can't be changed or is too much of a hassle then please don't worry about it. Thanks for you time. MarnetteD | Talk 02:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the way the template was written. We can probably created an inherited template which puts certain titles in italics. DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Was this table designed for the new series and then copied for the pages for the old one? I guess my main concern is that the MoS italics/quotes for titles is now confusing for readers and newbie editors on those season pages. We now have quotes in those tables and italics in the tables for the DVD releases. The only story in the whole of the classic series (and even McGann's TV movie) that should be in quotes is "Mission to the Unknown" if memory serves. If you want to get more input from others in the project please feel free to copy our discussion over to the talk page and thanks again for you time and input. MarnetteD | Talk 18:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems the template has a workaround. You can use RTitle (raw title) instead of Title (title with quotes). So I just corrected all the tables. DonQuixote (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that it was something relatively simple. Many many (x10 at least) thanks for fixing the tables. I know from past and current experience that small fixes like that can take more time then one big fix. I do appreciate you following thru on this. MarnetteD | Talk 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You know

I long for a day when so-called sources are dismissed as the claptrap that they are and that Wikipedia relies upon the good sense of its editors. Jimbo Wales is a snivelling little socialist political puppet and Wikipedia will only become the fire of knowledge in the darkness that it could be when its policies are suspended. Every. Single. One of them. That's why Wikipedia needs people like me. I've registered so many accounts I've lost track of them but I'm still going strong because somebody needs to stand up for sense and reason and if nobody else is tough enough to take that burden then like Atlas, I will accept it. --2.102.53.173 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the fix DQ. I figured you would be on the case. I didn't go to the site you mentioned. The one I did go to mentioned moulding which I am familiar with and another one said that it is more Canadian than British. I am so used to the "u" in various words but I just couldn't remember ever having seen it with this one. Can we get to the fall already so we can see some new episodes for heavens sake. I can't wait to see Ben Browder (not as John Crichton) acting opposite Matt. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 13:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

River Song (Doctor Who)

I'm not going to revert you again as we're both engaged on the talk page - and I'll will wait for the outcome of that discussion; but because you're also reverting the edits of others, I did want to mention that you should be careful to be mindful of 3RR, as you're technically at four reverts now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. DonQuixote (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises

Hi DonQuixote - I would like to restore the line I added indicating where the phrase "dark knight" comes from. I consider the source of a movie's title to be significant, especially when not stated in the movie itself. Mtn (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Although an interesting detail, one which can be gotten from the main Batman article, it isn't important enough for the intro. If you can find a better place in the article to put it (for example, "Development", etc.) and if you can find a reliable source (a blog isn't considered very reliable by wikipedia standards), then feel free to edit it back into the article. DonQuixote (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I placed it in the intro following the lead of entries of other superhero movies where the source material is referenced in the first paragraph; it seems logical anyway. I cited the blog of the author of the only book on Bill Finger, who happens to be me. The book, however, doesn't explicitly say this. Mtn (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but citing your own work is a conflict of interest. Please cite something else. DonQuixote (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course brazenly PLUGGING your own work is a conflict of interest. But if my work is the only place I have found (after five years of research) that specifies this fact, and the goal of Wikipedia is to present the facts for the good of the public, then it is missing the forest for the trees NOT to allow this fact on the basis of conflict of interest. I gain nothing from this. I just want it to be known where this phrase comes from, since the writer who applied it to Batman is not credited in the film itself, and no one else has stepped up to add this fact on Wikipedia. Taking it a step further, the best source to confirm this fact is a book called "Batman Chronicles, Volume 1," which is the first in a series reprinting every Batman comic book in chronological order; reading that, you can clearly identify the first use of the phrase, but the book does not come out and STATE that this is the first use, so to cite it here would be considered original research, no? And that is, of course, a no-no, too. So if you won't let me cite my work, would you please cite it, in the name of accuracy? Incidentally, this fact is NOT on the main Batman page, and even if it were, that would not preclude it from being cross-referenced for the many who will come to this page but not the Batman page. Mtn (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the goal of wikipedia is to collate and summarise the works of others. To quote the text right below the edit box and above the submit buttons, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Sorry. Also, citing oneself is promoting one's original research and is a conflict of interest. Finally, I'm not in the habit of citing blogs since blogs aren't considered reliable by wikipedia. DonQuixote (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I just checked my book ("Bill the Boy Wonder: The Secret Co-Creator of Batman") and had forgotten that I do indeed include this fact; it is on page 2 of the author's note. (And again, like every other fact in my book and my work in general, whether book or blog, it is verifiable. I annotate and save all sources.) The book has recently been reviewed by the WASHINGTON POST, MTV, and various other publications, with more to come. Would you now be willing to add back the fact? Mtn (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure I'll check out the book. However, I'm more inclined to include it in the Batman article rather than The Dark Knight Rise article. DonQuixote (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but no worries. I know plenty of people who have read the book and would gladly do this. The fact would indeed fit in the Batman article as well, but it's not an either-or situation, and the point is to explain the origin of the phrase "The Dark Knight" in the article about the movie named for it; again, entries for numerous other superhero movies include such content, logically so. Thanks again. Mtn (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Doctor Who in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Doctor Who for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Olympics

Hello DQ. I meant to leave this yesterday so it may be too late to fully enjoy the thought by the time you read it. I don't know what all the fuss is about regarding who will be the last person carrying the torch into the Olympic Stadium tonight. I thought we had already seen documentary footage of the event that slipped through a wormhole six years ago :-) If you are into the Olympics I hope that you enjoy the coverage. If you aren't, at least, when they are over we will be that much closer to new stories featuring our favorite Time Lord. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for the pie. Now I gotta go get some vanilla ice cream to top it off with. Yummmmm. MarnetteD | Talk 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)