User talk:DonQuixote

June 2020

Hello. This is to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of Doctor Who villains did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. 197.86.143.126 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please cite an interview or a behind-the-scenes magazine article or a behind-the-scenes book or something similar that supports your POV, otherwise STOP TRYING TO ADVANCE YOUR UNSOURCED POV. DonQuixote (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Doctor Who villains; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Clark Kent

Are you seriously trying to claim that this has nothing to do with Smallville? 2001:BB6:52F1:AB00:8DC3:69FB:77C4:579B (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not as important as you claim (you would need to cite a reliable source for that). See MOS:REALWORLD. DonQuixote (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

How is it not important? It is the most-recent appearance of the actor as the character, reprising their role for the only time since the series finale. 2001:BB6:52F1:AB00:8DC3:69FB:77C4:579B (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If it's important, than you would be able to cite reliable sources saying that it's important. Please do so. DonQuixote (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have, and you keep removing them. If the actors and writers themselves talking about it are not considered reliable (which they are), than what is?2001:BB6:52F1:AB00:8DC3:69FB:77C4:579B (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources are not saying what you're claiming they say. Please cite a source that says anything like "It is a stand-alone special serving as an epilogue to the Smallville series" or it's actually a part of the production of Smallville. None of your sources actually say anything like that. DonQuixote (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not say the second part, and they do not need to be that for it to be mentioned at List of Smallville characters. That refers to characters introduced in Smallville, which includes Weiling's Kent and Durance's Lane. Regardless, I will get you the epilogue reference. 2001:BB6:52F1:AB00:8DC3:69FB:77C4:579B (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I know that you didn't say the second part--that's what's required of you to support your edits (per MOS:REALWORLD). DonQuixote (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Karen Gillan...

If you are going to enforce this, then you will need to go through and edit Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Jack Black, Nick Jonas, and both of the Jumanji articles... I was only trying to standardize it compared to all of the other related articles on Wikipedia... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in those other articles. If you want to standardise it in spite of the manual of style and the current consensus, you can always start a request for comment. DonQuixote (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I see nowhere that a consensus was reached to have her listed as Martha (played by another actress), nor can I find any information in the MOS that says anything about listing by correct character names. The MOS argument would quickly be shot down by every actor who was "uncredited" in a movie but still has it listed on their article, and it would seem the consensus (considering every other related article on Wikipedia) would be to list the "in-game" character names. Please show me where this information is found in the MOS or where a discussion regarding the topic was discussed and a consensus has already been reached if I am wrong. I can find zero discussion on the talk page, zero mention on the other articles, only a commented statement on her article alone saying not to list her by her character name. This is kind of the point of being bold, just because one editor commented into the article not to change it, does not mean it is right, or can't be changed... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I also do not see how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS relates... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking into this further... I can see nothing in MOS:REALWORLD that says not to list the correct character name, I see nothing in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that even closely relates to this specific edit (I'm not trying to create a new article for a non-notable character), and I see zero discussion or consensus regarding her (or anyone else's) character name in the movies. Specifically, of the 12 articles on the topic (10 actors, two movies) that I just looked up, it would seem the "consensus" is to list the actors by the correct character names (including Colin Hanks, who was uncredited). If nothing else, standardizing her character name to match each and every of the other articles on the topic would seem to fall more closely under WP:COHESION (and/or possibly WP:INACCURACY or uniformity if we are going to read between the lines), rather than her article alone being different. Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe standardizing the information we have across all the articles of a topic is the correct thing to do here, not to have one article out of 12+ with different (incorrect) information. - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok...missed the point. Other-stuff-exists is in-and-of-itself a weak argument without other things to back it up. In other words, try using another argument that's stronger.

Also, in terms of the real world, it's best to go by the credits as it avoids original research, specialist knowledge and in-universe POV. As for consensus, in this article there was a handful of editors who reverted Ruby Roundhouse to Martha in the original movie--I'm just following consensus. As for other films, there's a consensus to write per credits in film articles such as Rise of Skywalker (Palpatine), Wonder Woman (2017 film) (Diana), Star Trek Into Darkness (Khan), to name a few off the top of my head--so, I'm just following the consensus with regards to those too. DonQuixote (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nah, not here to argue anymore, I'll save the silly bureaucracy of this place for other editors... if logically wanting to standardize information across a topic, and not have one of 12+ articles completely different from the rest is not enough, you can do with it as you please... good luck and happy editing... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You made at least one edit to The Monk (Doctor Who) which is disruptive. Wikipedia requires a WP:NPOV. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)