User talk:Drysarcasm
{{Welcome}} (you can read the full message, but you seem to have been around for a while).
Like your username. JFW | T@lk 02:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Shake Your Money Maker was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 06:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Birdbrain[edit]
Thanks for expanding the Birdbrain page - I've followed your lead and done some more work on it. A little more work should mean a B-class article at least - take a look! Cheers Sparklism 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia's handling of spoilers, you might find the following articles useful:
Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- If your reasoning was based on content policy/guidelines, I'd likely back it. It isn't. So it falls under the auspices of censorship, which is something we don't do. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see: you wish a certain type of information not be included in an article, and, presumably, you believe this is a general principle which should hold for more than just one article. And yet, your reasoning for wanting this doesn't come from the rules on content. And what does Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer say?
Which laws of Florida are we breaking, then? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 23:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted.
- Let's see: you wish a certain type of information not be included in an article, and, presumably, you believe this is a general principle which should hold for more than just one article. And yet, your reasoning for wanting this doesn't come from the rules on content. And what does Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer say?
- I'll focus the discussion simply enough: one cannot have a section of an article which deals in stories other than the eponym without revealing details from those other stories, whether they be past, present or future. And let's be clear about this: Doctor Who fandom has seen its numbers swell over the past couple of years, with newcomers mainly having little or no experience of the entire canon of the original series. We wouldn't censor references to An Unearthly Child because lots of people haven't seen it yet. And, indeed, for example, I can see the big reveal in Frontier in Space is given away in a number of places.
- However, there's something I've spotted in all this that I missed yesterday — which you might also have done, were you thinking in terms of content. You see, there's more than one candidate for the trap which the Master sets for the Doctor in The Lazarus Experiment; the fact that someone has decided in favour of one means that the note is *drumroll* original research when there's no source to say that this is definitely it. There, job done.
- But please understand that neither I nor Wikepedia have shifted positions on including spoilers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's censorship, pure and simple. You may not want to see it that way, but that's what it is. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- But please understand that neither I nor Wikepedia have shifted positions on including spoilers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)