User talk:DonQuixote/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tenth Doctor

The quality of the article for 10 should, i feel, be in the same condition as 9 and 11. After all, he is one of the most popular. Care to help bump it up to GA status? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:35 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Seasons Greeting to you and yours

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.

class=redirect

WPBANNERMETA supports |class=redirect -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That might be true, but generally, it's not on talk pages. DonQuixote (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the other James Bond pages (for Talk:James Bond (film character)) has used it, and it was placed by others and not by me, so shouldn't Talk:James Bond (character) be the same as that page? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a strong argument. DonQuixote (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that also be your argument? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

See template:seealso for general usage. DonQuixote (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So, use {{distinguish}} instead? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the same template. Also, reviewing the talk page you mentioned above, it's a talk page for an article which got deleted and turned into a redirect. So it's probably just there as a record. DonQuixote (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

small number of related topics would seem to be the related talk pages. (since the literary character page was rewritten to be literary by removing the film information, and the film character page was written to create a page for the film character, discussions on the lit character page would be related to the film character due to the past contents when the lit char was at "character".) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"James Bond (character)" redirects back to "James Bond (literary character)", so using template:seealso is a circular redirect and redundant. The talk at "James Bond (film character)" contains old discussions, which will be archived anyways, and isn't the place for new discussions. DonQuixote (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Its almost here

Hi DQ. I wanted to share the excitement that fellow wikipedians are expressing at this thread User talk:MarnetteD#DW with you. Cheers and have great time tomorrow night!! MarnetteD | Talk 22:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the beer and the link. That is a creative layout and it was fun to see. Much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In the news

Hello DQ. I don't know if you've seen this news item [1]. Should we tell them that when they start performing tests on the canvass that they are going to find "This is a fake" written in felt tip pen under the paint. Enjoy your weekend and the last new ep until Xmas. MarnetteD | Talk 14:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Lonely Assassins

Thank you very much for your prompt and friendly help with that. Much appreciated. I'm clueless on such topics so it is great to hear from one who is not! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

part banners for doctor who

Can i ask what monk has to do with the part banners i added for doctor who series 6 and 7? I don't see what you're trying to show me. Frogkermit (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Part banners" are unnecessary, as seen in Monk (season 2), where the schedule is similar to the current series of Doctor Who. DonQuixote (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A bit of Dr Who fun for you

Hello DQ. I just received an email from a DW friend regarding the fact that the Japanese kanji for doctor [2] looks a bit like a man in a box. In fact that might be a fez on the left side of the head. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer. Wouldn't it be fun if Moffat wrote a script taking the Dr to Japan sometime in the past and it ended with a scholar writing this kanji as though it was the first time it had ever been put on paper. MarnetteD | Talk 00:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I know this doesn't count as a WP:RS but I am curious as to what your explanation would be :-)

In The War Games, The War Chief is dressed like this. [3]. Note that The War Lord has a similar outfit. In fact, it's clearly the War Lord's uniform.

In Terror of the Autons, when The Master arrives he is dressed like this [4].

I would just be keen to know what you think of that. 41.133.0.18 (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

BBC wardrobe. See Axos and Krynoid, where they used the same costume for two different monsters. DonQuixote (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. But they adapted the Krynoid costume. it's the same basic costume, but altered. With the Master/War Chief it's the exact same costume. And the gap between appearances is significantly shorter. Anyone would think it's meant to be the same character. ::) 41.133.0.18 (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Or...it's a common trope to dress villains like that. See Dr No and Blofeld. DonQuixote (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: A Good Man Goes to War

This is not really an acceptable edit. "Written by Steven Moffat and directed by Peter Hoar"?? Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting an error. Feel free to correct it. Also, please be a little clearer in your statement as it took me a while to figure out what you meant. Regards. DonQuixote (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the first rule of editing is "do no harm". Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's "assume good faith"...people can make unintentional errors. DonQuixote (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize for my curt query. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that I partially undid your edit on Star Trek Into Darkness so that it did not breach Wikipedia:Copyvio.

Please also, if you havnt done so already come and join the discussion on the current topic about Into vs into. See you around. MisterShiney ✉ 17:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey hey

In an attempt to get past the impasse that has been reached re the capitalisation of I in intro on the Star Trek into Darkness article, I have created two additional sub-sections where users can put their for/against argument comments in without getting caught up in Beating a dead horse. These sections are purely for providing reasons and not for arguing back and forth, although discussions are welcome to continue in the above section. If you could come and give your view that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 21:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness

Sorry didn't know about the discussion. But according to StarTrek.com, the official Paramount website, the title of the film is Star Trek Into Darkness. http://www.startrek.com/article/check-out-new-star-trek-into-darkness-image I assumed that what Paramount calls the film should be how it is listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfThornhill (talk • contribs) 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes

Season's Greetings, DonQuixote! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• This year we get both The Snowman and The Snowmen as TV treats. I doubt that they will ever be confused for one another :-) Have a great 2013 and continued happy editing! MarnetteD | Talk 18:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Brigadier, Benton and Yates

Hi, re this revert: I've started a thread at Talk:Third Doctor#Companions, again. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello DQ. Thanks for the Guinness. I have applied another spray of Troll-be-Gone to the latest diatribe that appeared here on your talk page. I hope that you are well and looking forward to the continuing celebrations of the Dr's 50th anniversary. BBC America is broadcasting a once a month retrospective of each Dr followed by a showing of one of their stories. The Aztecs was their 1st Dr feature and it is one of the pure "historical" stories that I recommend to any younger fans that I meet. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 08:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple Dr Who merchandise treats for your perusal

In our continuing celebrations of this 50th anniversary year I thought pass these links on for your enjoyment. First is this print [5] by Al Hirschfeld. Copies of this were available for a short period of time back in the late 80s or early 90s. Sadly my budget didn't stretch to it at the time. Next is this gem [6]. If you zoom in on some of the pics you'll see Leela and Bessie among many others. The Master seems to be a mix of Delgado - mostly - and Ainley - the costume. I did get to play it once. Unfortunately, it was on a business trip to Minneapolis so I didn't get enough time to get used to the way it combined any Dr Who storylines with its gameplay. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And many thanks to you for the beer! MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack"

Hello.

I've noticed you've been undoing my edits on the "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack" page. I see no reason to remove an episode from the list when the track has clearly appeared in it. Also you have removed a lot of useful information from the page such as episodes outside of Series 1 & 2 that each track has appeared in. This page is a very useful reference for Doctor Who music lovers such as myself so I would very much appreciate it if you kept the information as it is.

I agree that some information on this page was incorrect such as the inclusion of "The Doctor's Theme" in "The Impossible Astronaut" (or was it "Day of the Moon", I can't remember) but most of the information on the page was correct. I wouldn't add any information if I wasn't 100% sure it was correct. On another note, you said you deleted "Cold War" from the "Rose in Peril" list because it was in the Next Time trailer, but you chose to keep "Rose's Theme" in "Fear Her" even though it was there by the same citcumstance. If you do not believe me, by all means watch the trailer yourself. If, on the other hand, you deleted my edit because the episode in question was not part or Series 1 or 2, where is it written we cannot include episodes from other series where a track from this release is used? It is very useful information. (Also, you kept "The Runaway Bride" on the list even though it was part of Series 3's production cycle)

I'm sorry to have to write this, but as a Whovian, I feel I am obliged to; Please retain the original edits

TheConzor (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

All that stuff can be placed at Doctor Who wiki. Wikipedia avoids original research and requires verification from third party sources. Regards. DonQuixote (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I always thought if the track is in an episode- then the proof is in the episode. No worries- I'll see what I can do on the Doctor Who Wiki instead. TheConzor (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"The_Hounds_of_Baskerville" and ...

Hello, DonQuixote:

Sorry about the inadvertent "spam" (Lady Chatterly); I'd been editing that article and after seeing a notification from you about the "The_Hounds_of_Baskerville" article (which I'd recently edited), I somehow inadvertently pasted that entry onto your page. I didn't mean to and realized I'd done so only after receiving notification that you had reverted it (as well you should)! Apologies!

I'd gone to your talk page in the first place to discuss your having reverted my edit in the Infobox television episode to add a period after Dr (the abbreviation for Dr.). I did so in good faith, just as I'm sure you made your changes in good faith. Inclusion of a period after an abbreviated title (e.g., Dr., Mr., Mrs.) is grammatically correct in the U.S., and I realize it is sometimes used but sometimes not in the UK. However, the use of a trailing period was inconsistently used throughout the article, so I've consistently added the trailing period throughout. If you remove those, please do them individually and consistently, and don't make a wholesale reversion, as my copyedits include additional, non-region specific corrections/improvements of grammar/mechanics. Some such edits adhere to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which (for example) dictates that end-of-sentence punctuation should be placed outside, not inside quotation, marks, such as, "This".

Cheers, Froid (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible vendetta?

Hello. I know we have had disagreements. But I thought you should be aware of what User:Bondegezou has been up to.

[7]. There appears to be some sort of vendetta here. I have no idea what the correct procedure is about this sort of thing. perhaps you know the correct action? Thank you. 41.132.117.15 (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading through this person's edit history reveals that he/she had proposed multiple Big Finish Audios for deletion, already taken upon him/herself to redirect various articles to other articles that contain no actual information about the redirected page. However, he/she has then go through multiple articles removing any references to the Virgin Books's canonicity being open for interpretation. It is clear that this person is just someone who has their own personal canon which is the Virgin Books, and has some personal grudge against the Big Finish Audios. He/she is trying to twist Wikipedia to suit his/her personal idea of what "Doctor Who canon" is. There is clearly bias, and a sense of favouritism. I personally find this suit of prejudiced editing unacceptable, but I am unaware what is to be done about it, so I am asking for your assistance. Thank you. 41.132.117.15 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's in the right in both cases (what constitutes "canon" is OR and notability requires RS). Although, you can comment on the fact that the books are about as notable as the audio programmes. There's comments on his talk page User talk:Bondegezou#Doctor Who Spin-offs. DonQuixote (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May I also remind the IP editor of the assumption of good faith that we should all show to each other?

I have been working through a group of articles (in a somewhat haphazard way). If anyone has problems with those edits, they can be reverted like any other edit. However, Dr Who articles have to satisfy basic Wikipedia policies of WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:N just like all others. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Doctor_Who#References_to_canonicity. (Wasn't certain if there was a better place for it...?) Bondegezou (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Rory's Heroism

Hi - I noticed you reverted my making "hero" into a link at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rory_Williams&oldid=557680900&diff=prev and I understand we do not want to link every word we can in an article.

In this case, I believe that the question of whether Rory is a "hero" is central to his character and so it makes sense to link it. Doctor Who is a show about heroism (among other things), and in the early episodes with Rudy he worries Amy will leave him for the more heroic Doctor, in part for his usual incompetence. This is a common inquiry for Doctor Who companions generally (Mickey when he joined Rose with the Doctor).

Does that make sense?

John_Abbe (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if you can cite a reliable source that supports the above, hero is still a common word and doesn't need to be wikilinked. DonQuixote (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and an update

Thanks for catching my booboo. I just spent a delightful hour watching the episode again and freeze framing to find the other Doctors - it was hard to catch them on the initial broadcast. Simeon mentions the Sycorax as another race that the Doctor wiped out along with the Daleks and Cybermen and he doesn't refer to the leader separately so I have reworded the sentence. If that isn't okay with you please feel free to change it again. I did find a WP:OR glitch regarding the 1st Dr and Susan entering a TARDIS. They are wearing the clothes that we see them wearing in An Unearthly Child but Susan refers to the fact that they have been travelling for quite some time before we meet them. Oh well that is just trainspotting and maybe they hadn't started filling up the TARDIS closet yet :-) I hope that you enjoyed the new episodes and that the months go by quickly until November 23rd. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 05:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just checked it myself and Simeon says "Tell that to the leader of the Sycorax or Solomon the Trader..." DonQuixote (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Double ack and Doh. Then definitely change it back ASAP. That certainly makes more sense anyway. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's ok. Some beer should help. :D DonQuixote (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

After seeing David Bradley as the slimy Solomon and having seen his Walder Frey just bump off a whole batch of characters in tonight's episode of Game of Thrones I look forward to a change of gears when he plays Hartnell in An Adventure in Time and Space. I wonder if they will broadcast that on Nov 23rd as well. Thanks for your patience with my errors. MarnetteD | Talk 05:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Can't wait for those two episodes as well. Cheers. DonQuixote (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that after Matt's news hit the net the first article that I saw a "rumored to take over" edit on was the one for Damian Lewis. Not a shred of evidence of course but I had to chuckle as the "wish to be a ginger" would finally be fulfilled :-) MarnetteD | Talk 05:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL! DonQuixote (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Installments

Hi, re this revert - the editor couldn't read the inline note, because they used Visual Editor. There have been threads on this matter at WP:VE/F, but they're all archived (see for example Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 07#Invisicomments in VisualEditor). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Weeping Angels -- SCP connection reverted

Good evening,

it is a very interesting fact that a game may have sprouted from Weeping Angels, and very popular one, also. So it's important to write it also. And, try to solve problems not by just reverting, but by discussion.

SCP Containment Breach is a very popular game, and one can easily be part of its fanclub while being a fan of Doctor Who... Many players may have found the game on basis of an alleged inspiration reference, so I think it is important in the article - certainly it deserves two lines when awards (not for Angels only, mostly for Dr. Who) consume about six...¨

Richard S.

By convention, we follow WP:BRD where when the bold edit is reverted, the person who is supporting the new edit starts a discussion on the talk page. So please do so regarding the WP:notability of this addition. DonQuixote (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The next Doctor

Hi DQ. I hope that you are well and having a good summer. We have several guesses about tomorrows announcement on my talk page. Feel free to chime in if you wish. Have fun tomorrow whatever happens. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit reverted

Why was my edit to Anita Sarkeesian reverted? Watching her videos it seems pretty clear that she is a misandrist. --Gourra (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research. Please publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd post several YouTube videos that proves as to why she can't be taken seriously and why she's a misandrist, but I'm guessing that's not "reliable sources". --Gourra (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's no "reliable source" that has it, because it's an unpopular opinion (and fact to point out) that only blogs and YouTube videos have. But hey, let's not have facts with sources on Wikipedia. --Gourra (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

To be blunt, you're not an acknowledged expert so your opinions means as much as mine...which is nothing. Sorry about that. Also, see WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOAPBOX. DonQuixote (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor

Hi, there is no page for Doctor Who Live anymore so I have have transferred the content to here which is where I believe is the best place for it right now. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 19:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The character page isn't the best place for that. List of Doctor Who serials is better, although it might not be appropriate there either. You can put it in your sandbox for the moment till we can figure out where the best place to put it is. Open a discussion at WT:DOCTORWHO. DonQuixote (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

I couldn't tell Penrose from Penfold without it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Commiting a crime versus investigating a crime.

Hi, DonQuixote.

I understand your vote on the straw poll at Talk:The Dark Knight Rises regarding "Do Selina's actions amount to kidnapping?" You answered Yes, per "Get me Commissioner Gordon, I've got a line on the congressman's kidnapping."

The thing is, I wish to remind you that just because police are treating a situation as a kidnapping, it doesn't mean a kidnapping necessarily happened. The question IS, after all, about "Selina's actions", not "The GCPD's Reaction to the Congressman's disappearance."

You get me, right? It's probably normal for police to treat a missing Congressman as a kidnapping case. But did Selina actually kidnap him? In what way? We don't see her drug him, get him drunk, point a gun at him, restrain him, keep him captive, demand a ransom, or any of those things. She merely uses him, as millions of women use men every day. Because he's smitten with her.

Do you think you would consider changing your vote?

Best Wishes, --Ben Culture (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That's just reading between the lines. The work of fiction says that it was a kidnapping so it is. DonQuixote (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So, if I wrote a story in which a policeman said "That Don Quixote from Wikipedia is a serial killer", that would make you a serial killer?

--Ben Culture (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Er...no, that would make the Don Quixote in your story a serial killer. DonQuixote (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come now! Nobody is ever falsely accused? If a cop says a person committed a specific crime, that person is unquestionably guilty?

The poll is about Selina's behavior, not the police investigation. Does Selina behave as a kidnapper, and if so, in what way? --Ben Culture (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You can say that she was falsely accused, but then, in the context of the article, it would be original research and interpretation. The film itself says that she's a kidnapper. Unless the film says otherwise, it was a kidnapping. DonQuixote (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Right . . . See, here's the thing: No, it doesn't. The film does not say Selina is a kidnapper. Speaking strictly, there IS no character called "the film itself". "The film itself" doesn't say anything as specific as "Selina is a kidnapper".

The film shows the police treating the congressman's disappearance as a kidnapping. That's a huge difference. We never see Selina behave as a kidnapper, we never see the congressman portrayed as a captive, and we never see Selina explicitly charged with kidnapping. (Yes, we know she is charged with something, and sent to Blackgate Prison, but we are not told what charge(s) she is convicted of.

I never said Selina was falsely accused; I'm asking, what is she ever accused OF? I have watched this film obsessively . . . and I know it's expecting too much for anyone else to sit through a 2-hour and 45-minute film just to see if I'm right . . . but we are only told the congressman is "pressing charges". That could mean any number of other crimes besides kidnapping. It's speculation to say she was charged with kidnapping. It's original interpretation.

Finally, the poll is about Selina's behavior, not the police. Gordon, Blake and Foley could all join hands and solemnly swear that Selina was the Statue of Liberty, but she still wouldn't turn green and grow over 150 feet tall.

Thanks again for your attention. I believe I am working to make the article better and more accurate, I promise you.

--Ben Culture (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're reading too much between the lines...which goes along the lines of original research and synthesis. Unless otherwise stated in the film, kidnapping is the charge for which she was convicted, ergo she's a kidnapper. Again, unless it is otherwise stated in the film, we can't assume anything else than that. (And I meant "the film" as in "the text", or "primary source", and not "a character".) DonQuixote (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm not saying this just to be contrary ... this is not fun; this is the most miserable day I've ever spent on Wikipedia in my life ... I'm ONLY doing this in the hopes of improving the article ... so please take me seriously when I say, from where I stand, *I'm* the only one who ISN'T reading between the lines! You say "Unless otherwise stated in the film, kidnapping is the charge for which she was convicted, ergo she's a kidnapper." I say, SAYS WHO? "The film"?

When are we *ever* told Selina is convicted of (or even charged with) kidnapping? We aren't.

It seems to me that you are making the assumption here. I am not making any assumption at all. It LOOKS like a seduction, so I'm TAKING IT as a seduction! It does NOT look like a kidnapping, so I don't assume it IS one.

The poll is not *about* the officers of the GCPD, or the courts. It's about Selina's actions, and none of her actions are those of a kidnapper. She enters his car and asks for a ride. He cheerfully agrees. Next, we see him happily toodling around with Selina into the sleazy bar, where he happily munches on snack food and laughs at the coverage of his "disappearance". We don't see Selina using force on him, drugging him, restraining him, or trying to get a ransom. In other words, NONE of the elements of kidnapping are seen in Selina's behavior.

And that was the point of the poll: Selina's actions, not the police's opinions. You based your answer on what the Gotham cops said, not what Selina did. That's not what you were asked. But so be it. I can now see, expecting you to ever change your mind is a waste of my time. Frankly, it's too frustrating to try to talk to someone who doesn't understand what it actually means to "read between the lines". So, good night to you. Thanks for your time. I hope it wasn't worth any more than mine. --Ben Culture (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Selina's actions are debatable and liable to interpretation. What we can be sure of is, according to the narrative, it's a kidnapping. Anything else is original research and synthesis and reading between the lines. Splitting hairs between Selina's "actions" and the police's "opinion" is beside the point when writing about fiction (unless otherwise stated within the narrative)--what matters is what the narrative explicitly states. DonQuixote (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WHEN, exactly, does the narrative "explicitly state" that Selina "kidnapped" the Congressman? --Ben Culture (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"Get me Commissioner Gordon, I've got a line on the congressman's kidnapping." DonQuixote (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, God . . . I suspected as much.

That is NOT the "explicit" statement you referred to.

An "explicit" statement would be: "Selina Kyle kidnapped the Congressman!" Even better, to follow it up with "She just signed a confession, in exchange for ... [etc.]"

I knew it . . . You're a man of mediocre mind, but an above-average vocabulary. You're deeply in love with words and phrases like "Original Research", "Synthesis", "Reading between the lines", and "explicit", while having, AT BEST, only the dimmest fucking idea what those terms actually mean.

I already bid you good night. I do not want to hear back from you. Please move on.

--Ben Culture (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...the narrative explicitly states "Get me Commissioner Gordon, I've got a line on the congressman's kidnapping." It says nothing else. It doesn't say anything like "The police were wrong" or "Selina didn't kidnap the congressman". So we can only go we what is said--not what isn't said. That's the point. DonQuixote (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A film -- a good film, at least -- doesn't just tell us things. Far, FAR more, it shows us things. What it "says" and what it shows may be -- and often are -- at variance. This is essential to suspense drama: What's really going on here?

On the one hand: The police treating an unexplained disappearance as a kidnapping.

On the other hand: What we are actually shown. What we do, and do not, see Selina Kyle do. What we do and do not see the congressman do.

One hand, other hand: Do you understand that these things are not the same?

Do you understand that what we are SHOWN matters more?

A line of dialogue from a character is not a statement of fact from the authors of the film. ("PSST! Here's what's really going on, folks!") It's not an Easter egg.

I yelled and insulted you (I should be sorry -- I'm not, yet) because I felt like you really aren't capable of grasping the difference, and you're using a LOT of terms inappropriately. All that wastes my time. That line from the cop you quoted isn't an "explicit" statement from the "narrative" that a kidnapping happened; it merely states how the police are treating the case of a man who, AS WE ARE SHOWN, willingly walked away from his everyday life with a pretty young girl.

If you don't understand this, I'm not interested in fielding another reply from you.

--Ben Culture (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You do realise that, in context, "says" and "shows" mean the same thing? The film depicts Selina doing something. It later revealed that it was a kidnapping. To say that what the film says later about the scene is somehow wrong is interpretation. It's your interpretation that the only thing that happened was the congressman "willingly walked away from his everyday life with a pretty young girl." DonQuixote (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have time

Hello DQ. I hope that you are well and that you had a nice summer. I saw your edit removing the music item this evening. Would you mind taking a look at the other edits by that person. It looks like they are a SPA here to promote their band. I am inclined to remove the older entries as unsourced and self promotional. On the other hand there is very little sourcing in either article so I thought I would ask your opinion first. A little over three months to go to the Dr's 50th! Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just did a google search of "Traffic Experiment" and they just released their debut album...so not notable. And yeah, the other stuff needs to be trimmed. too. DonQuixote (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking alook at things. All items have been pruned out. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 15:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Editorial advice sought from the master

Greetings DQ. I have not been an editor of Wikipedia very long, nor have I contributed a great amount; what I add tends to depend on what I happen to be looking up on any given day. Till this month, though, I'd have been able to say that I'd spent more time writing and editing than arguing on a talk page. As of this past month, I've probably expended more time on one page of mutual interest than I've spent on all other edits in the past year. I am not proud, having allowed myself to be drawn into the trap. I wish I could keep myself as detached as you seem to do in the face of fierce provocations (even on your own talk page, above--shame on Ben). I admire your "sheer coolth" (Pratchettism). Any tips? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have to admit that I lose my temper too. It's just that after I write something, I usually take time to copyedit it and I usually cool off by the time I'm finished (although not all the time). Also, as you edit more and more, you tend to care less about inappropriate edits as other experienced editors come along and confirm your own assessment of the situation. And always keep in mind that Wikipedia is a work in progress spanning years. DonQuixote (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lex Luthor in other media

Hi, can you do some copy edit on what I made on Lex Luthor in other media#Smallville? Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

An Adventure in Space and Time

I don't understand to why the link to the image that was published on Doctor Who's official Facebook page wouldn't work, but I have found a source that also provides the airdate. Could you please add this in, if this is considered to be a reliable source. 13thDoctor93 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Name of the Doctor

Can I just ask why did you revert my edit on the named article. I gave a good reason and you just changed it.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been discussed on several talk pages (sorry, I forgot that it wasn't centralised). See Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)/Archive 4#John Hurt for one such discussion. The gist is that that part of the infobox is for series stars (real-world perspective). Hurt isn't the star of the show. DonQuixote (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Have an enjoyable two weeks

Hello DQ. Just wanted to drop a note wishing you much fun as we head to the 50th anniversary on the 23rd. The show wasn't on at its 30th and 40th anniversaries so those celebrations were more muted. I think I am looking forward An Adventure in Time and Space as much as I am to The Name of the Doctor. BTW if you have the Special Edition DVD of The Five Doctors there is a documentary about all the different events that happened to celebrate the 20th anniversary in 1983. Near the end there is a report about the Convention held in Chicago the 26th and 27th of November. Their is a brief shot of Lis in Sarah Jane's "Andy Pandy" outfit and then Jon walks out of a TARDIS prop to the cheers of the audience. Well, I am in that room to the right of the camera! Great memories and I hope that you have past ones and are looking forward to the new ones about to occur. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Newcastle. I probably should have mentioned that segment I mentioned is brief so you might want to have your finger on the pause button. Also, I am not on camera but at least I am in the room! Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 19:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. An Adventure... was simply amazing. I have been reading and listening to interviews about the events of Hartnell's time as the Dr for over 30 years but this docudrama helped me to understand things in ways I never had before. IMO David Bradley deserves several awards for his performance. BTW Google has a fun tribute to Dr Who as its doodle today. It includes a little game where, if A Dalek "Exterminates" the Doctor he regenerates into the next one. 4 Hours to go Woot Woot. MarnetteD | Talk 15:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The War Doctor (etc.)

Hey; it seems to be always you and me that keep popping up on the opposite sides of this thing! Just want to say that you're doing some great work, and I admire it (in spite of differences of opinion). Somewhere, Stephen Moffat is cackling at the edit disputes he's caused. Cheese453 | (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto, man. A couple of weeks ago I feared the day after the special would be like this. It seems like there's an entire type of person whose personality is driven to "correct" Wikipedia on this point, despite so many airtight reasons to the contrary. My suspicion is it will die down, but never entirely go away.Zythe (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

A request for comment has been started on an issue you have been discussing at Talk:Doctor_Who#Tables.Blethering Scot 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for correcting me on the tenure thing. Realized I was wrong ten minutes after I submitted but didn't have the time to go back. The evacipated (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Doctor (Doctor Who) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You continue to revert despite Hurt's position as lead actor being made official at the end of The Night of the Doctor. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. All the editors need a discussion about this on a dedicated talk page. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mcs2050wiki continues to behave (as above) here. Rosemary Cheese (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked you since the reason for Kralizec's block are over—I blocked all the sock puppets that were reverting you and causing edit wars on the Doctor (Doctor Who) page. Good luck. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You were this close…

I came this close to reporting you to 3R for edit-warring, and I am almost positive that you'd lose that particular tug of war. Please do me, yourself and everyone around you and COMMUNICATE with your fellow users. We cannot read your mind, and you sure as hell cannot read mine. I am frustrated by the apparent belief that after your third revert, the rest of us are going to stop and say, 'oh, well, since he's reverted so many times, we must be the ones who are wrong.'
Please think next time, DQ; I am exceptionally disappointed that you wasted my time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Idiot's Lantern

What was wrong with my contribution? It was a while since I saw this episode, so maybe I didn't remember all the details. Arms Jones (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's original research as seen in the following..."It is unclear when she would have been able to do that, since she has been travelling with the Doctor and dating Mickey Smith (who is not in the navy) since she was introduced to the series, while in the previous episode "The Empty Child", she did not know this difference." DonQuixote (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. I'll look for a source, then, since reffering to the episodes is perhaps not enough. Arms Jones (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I know this line is corny but it is true as well

For me anyway :-) It feels more like four months than nearly four years since Matt GERONIMOED into our lives. I have to paraphrase David's 10th Dr line and say that "I don't want him to go" - I am looking forward to Peter though. Enjoy Wednesday's episode. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ya beat me to it

Hi DQ. You got to this just before I did. As ever thanks for your vigilance. This did give me a reason to stop by and say that I hope that you have a fun and enjoyable 2014. Best regards MarnetteD | Talk 04:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Sign of Three

The whole article is primary-sourced OR. What part of the uniform issue are you questioning? That he's called a "grenadier" in the dialogue, or that they're wearing Welsh Guards uniforms - which like all the British Guards uniforms, are conveniently numbered on the front. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your expert observation on the costumes being Welsh Guard uniforms, but that's original research. Wikipedia requires citing secondary sources for verification. DonQuixote (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So source it, if it offends you. Same as every other line in the unsourced plot summary! What is unacceptable is to restore content that is patently false, in its favour. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your expert observation that the costuming doesn't match the real world, but that requires a reliable source for verification. Or to put it more bluntly...Wikipedia's purview is not listing goofs. DonQuixote (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is it a goof? I simply presume that it's filmed in Wales as well as Bristol and it's easier to find that sort of Guardsman. The dialogue "grenadier guardsman" is an inaccuracy in that character's speech (I can't remember who it was), but that's no doubt how the script had it, not an error of production as a goof.

Also, this is Sherlock Holmes (and the modern Sherlock at that). It's all about the details. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't change the fact that it's your personal observation and thus original research. It needs to be verified by a secondary reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So add a source if you wish. However adding "Grenadier Guardsman" and linking it is not only just as unsourced, but it's also obviously incorrect. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Er...no. You're the one making the claim, so the burden of responsibility is on you. DonQuixote (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that he's a Grenadier though, you are! It's heinous OR to claim that he's a Welsh Guard (wearing a Welsh Guards uniform), but it's OK for you to claim he's a Grenadier on no evidence whatsoever. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've only been reverting your original research. Change it to the generic guardsman if you want. DonQuixote (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not only recently recovered

Hi, re this revert - the IP seems to have simply copied the |Archive=y|Fragment=y from Fury from the Deep. The giveaway is the change from <!--40--> to <!--42--> --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. DonQuixote (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ladder Paradox

DQ, my contribution was correct, and should not have been rolled back. I reviewed it with a Professor of Physics at the U of Washington. It was NOT just contraction applied to the ladder: my resolution was specified in the rest frame of the ladder, not the garage. Furthermore, I calculated the Lorentz-transformed time at which the right door reaches the right end of the ladder, in the rest frame of the ladder, and pointed out that this occurs BEFORE the left door arrives at the left end of the ladder. As you recognize elsewhere in your original article, this difference in simultaneity is the resolution of the paradox (btw, it is redundant to say "apparent paradox" - all paradoxes are apparent).

Working from the right/right time in the ladder rest frame, it is easy to show that, when the left door reaches the left end of the ladder, the right door is at $G/\gamma$, which shows the paradoxical contraction of the garage.

The resolution has no need of any acceleration. Also, there is no paradox at all if you allow the ladder to be crushed to a shorter length! I find all of that discussion to be highly misleading. Discussion of rigid bodies in SR is quite interesting but irrelevant to the resolution of this paradox. Lexchis (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

$\gamma$ goes from 1 to infinity, so $G/\gamma$ goes from G to 0. It can never be greater than L if G starts out less than L. DonQuixote (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

G and L are proper lengths i.e. in the respective rest frames of the garage and the ladder. $L/\gamma$, the ladder length seen in the garage rest frame, can most certainly be less than G, as v increases. In the ladder rest frame, there is no need for $G/\gamma$ to be greater than L, because the doors open and close at different times (relativity of simultaneity). That is the essence of the resolution of the paradox.

By the way, you did not mention that my original post also included a specific calculation of the limits on L, G, and v in order for the paradox to be resolved. How can it be that I derived this formula, yet did not resolve the paradox? Lexchis (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But the point is that you didn't resolve the paradox. You solved that the right end of the garage is at x′ = $\gamma$G at time t′ = $-\gamma Gv/c^{2}$. Also, the left end of the garage is at v(-t′). At time t′ = 0, the left end of the garage is at 0 while the right end of the garage is at x′ = $G/\gamma$. Simultaneity for the ladder are the world lines that are parallel to the x′ axis. At t′ = 0, x′ will always be less than or equal to G. Similarly, at t′ = $-\gamma Gv/c^{2}$, $\Delta x\prime =G/\gamma$. DonQuixote (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DQ, the statement of the paradox is: the contracted ladder "fits" in the garage rest frame, but the garage is contracted in the ladder rest frame, so how come the ladder doesn't get chopped up or crushed? Resolving the paradox means describing how the garage doors avoid chopping up or crushing the ladder in the ladder rest frame. In its rest frame, the ends of the ladder are always at 0 and L. So the fact that the right end of the garage is at x′ = $\gamma$G at time t′ = $-\gamma Gv/c^{2}$, which is the time that the right door opens, means that, if $L<\gamma G$, the right door is open and the ladder is not crushed. Relativity of simultaneity means that, in the ladder rest frame, the left door doesn't close until t' = 0, after the right door opens, and not until that left door passes the left end of the ladder. Paradox resolved.

It is important to note that if $L>\gamma G$, the ladder does get mashed. In the garage rest frame, this sad event is seen as the ladder not being contracted enough (i.e. v too slow); in the ladder rest frame, it is seen as the right garage door not opening in time to let the ladder pass.

You can see the (symmetric) length contraction of the garage in the ladder rest frame by noting that at t′ = 0, the right door of the garage will have traveled a distance $v*(-\gamma Gv/c^{2})=-\gamma Gv^{2}/c^{2}$ since it opened when it was at $x'=\gamma G$. Thus the right door will be at $\gamma G(1-v^{2}/c^{2})=G/\gamma$ at t′ = 0, which is when the left door of the garage reaches x′ = 0, the left end of the ladder. The garage is contracted!

I am puzzled by your rejection of this resolution, since it is simply an algebraic version of your Minkowski diagram - completely equivalent in every respect. I think it is good to have both versions, since some people visualize better geometrically, others algebraically. However, the Lorentz-algebraic resolution does uncover the required relationship between G, L and v, and it also shows quite clearly that no acceleration is necessary to resolve the paradox. Cheers, Lexchis (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As you pointed out, it's just an algebraic version of the Minkowski diagram, which isn't a resolution of the paradox. It's just something that demonstrates the relativity of simultaneity. Again, it's not a resolution of the paradox. DonQuixote (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And it's original research—see User talk:DVdm#Ladder Paradox. - DVdm (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree completely with both of you.

The algebraic result using the Lorentz transformation does indeed resolve the paradox, since it demonstrates that the ladder is not crushed or chopped in its own rest frame, which is the essence of the paradox.

And this is NOT original research; I was taught this as a physics graduate student at at top university; it is a straightforward plug-in of the Lorentz transformation.

However, I have many other things that require my time and attention, so I can't continue to battle you on this. I am deeply sorry for the students who may be misled by your article. Lexchis (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's taught in grad school, then sooner or later it will be published (or has been published). Citing the published work will bypass all this and it can be included in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wallis Simpson

You have never edited the Wallis Simpson page before. Why the interest now? Are you actually DrKiernan or do you know him or has he asked you to edit the article? Please also explain why my document violates copyright, given that it consists of a series of short quotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milneg (talk • contribs) 14:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Er...I have edited it before, but only spelling and grammar. And the link is a copyright violation because they point to scans of a book. You should cite the source itself if you want to do it properly. DonQuixote (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Are scans not allowed? What is your source for that assertion?Milneg (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, just cite the book. That's the academic way of doing things. You don't need to scan pages and post them online without the author's permission. Even if you have the author's permission, citation is the preferred way. Use template:cite book. DonQuixote (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So previously you said it is 'a copyright violation' i.e. against the law AND against Wikipedia rules. Now you are saying that it is 'the preferred way'. Before I take this matter further please confirm that you accused me of violating copyright but when I challenged you to cite your authority you withdrew that accusation.Milneg (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Milneg: Please have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works aka WP:LINKVIO: We "reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright" so we preferably "do not link to that copy of the work." As user DonQuixote suggested, the way to go is, just cite the book with the {{cite book}} template. - DVdm (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I have requested arbitration. Milneg (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It can be found here. Clerk for Arbitration Committee.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (Wallis Simpson title of Royal Highness) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Obama

	Obama Award
	Barack Obama awards this to you for proving Juliojames wrong Juliojames (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in this

[8]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who

I agree with your revision for Doctor Who incarnations to remain in the present tense. As far as the actor playing the Doctor, usage of paste tense verbs is appropriate. After all, one cannot really say any one incarnation of the Doctor is currently in the past, present or future! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funtzman (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Satisfied?

So the fact that the entry on Super-Squirrel in Alternative versions of Superman didn't have any references before I made an edit wasn't an issue, but the information I added apparently was? Fine. Edit restored, with reference to the issue numbers relevant to both the information I added *and* two out of, if I recall correctly, *three* whole published appearances of the character. Happy now? Damn busybodies..... -- Pennyforth (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please learn how to write an encyclopedia article. Review WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. Adding more original research to an article with a multiple issues tag doesn't help the matter. DonQuixote (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, daddy. Be sure to revel in your meaningless superiority over me as a Wikipedia editor, o great one. -- Pennyforth (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

3RR on Oathkeeper

You're now in 3RR on Oathkeeper. Or I'm 3RR and you're 4RR, depending on how it's counted. We have things to discuss on the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

All the more reason to stop reverting, Use the talk page, as you have been advised several times to do.

DonQuixote, am I supposed/allowed to contribute to the DRN entry regarding "Oathkeeper", or do you have the matter well in hand? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You can add yourself as a participant or add a comment if you want. DonQuixote (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I cannot shake the feeling that this is all a prank by some net trolls, due to the semantic games. I know it isn't AGF, but it doesn't change the sinking suspicion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)