User talk:MarnetteD/archive28

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MarnetteD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Truth Behind the Companions http://cheezburger.com/6579191040 DonQuixote (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To all my talk page watchers who are also Dr Who watchers. I thought I would post this here rather than on each of your pages. Tonight's episode has been anticipated by those of use who also enjoyed Farscape as Ben Browder has a guest role. Not a true crossover since he won't be playing John Crichton but it should be fun anyway. If you could wave a wand what other crossover would you like to see? One of mine is to see an episode of Futurama that features the characters from Red Dwarf. Just think of the possibilities Lister and Fry, the Cat and Zoidberg, Kryten and Bender the mind boggles (or reels back in horror heehee) oh and Rimmer and Zap Branigan. Well I know those of you across the pond get the ep in a couple hours while the rest of us have a full Saturday to fill so Cheers to you all. MarnetteD | Talk 16:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow turns out the bigger crossover is with the spaghetti westerns (especially Leone's) that I've been watching for over 40 years. MarnetteD | Talk 02:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Headline in my paper today that means something different to some of us.

DOCTOR WHO RENTED DOLLAR CAR AT DIA SUES

The article doesn't mention which Doctor or what happened to his Tardis but we can't have everything. MarnetteD | Talk 14:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not our job to promote what is Notable, it is to dissipate information. Please let the changes be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.249.72 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read read WP:NOTABILITY because it is our job to limit are article to same. You should also read WP:RS as you have yet to provide one to back up the claim that he was an economist. Oscar Wilde certainly doesn't mention it. MarnetteD | Talk 15:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No I haven't and I'm really sorry about that. My word against any other. I've never read any Oscar Wilde so I can't say anything. All I know is that if a guy knows the concepts of labor division and is smart enough to point out the weakness in an accepted economic model- and with some math - he qualifies as an economist. Are we good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.248.61 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What is an economist? One who studies the production and consumption of goods and services.

What are Ruskin's ideas? When the accepted theory focused on efficient production through profit seeking, which includes incentives to work harder, Ruskin felt that this was incomplete. Now you may say he was drawing heavily from some abstract known as Jesus of Nazareth, but inadvertently he proposed a fine solution to contracts of labor.

In harsher words, there is but one trivial and best solution to bargaining, such that it produces maximum benefit. This solution is one that allows the employer and the employee to produce goods with maximum "social affection", in Ruskin's terminology. It is commonly known as reciprocity.

Ruskin also formalizes the stakeholding capacity of labor, this may be construed as being Socialist, but we know that Ruskin preceded communism.I don't know whether the movements in France and the States had an influence on him, but he must be given credit for not maligning or breeding mistrust against those who owned rights, Land and Capital, while bringing home the point. He, in fact, was a champion of the Leader, as an individual, who holds together his people.

This reveals a very balanced mind, apolitical, and that to me is one criterion to being a researcher.

His criticism of traditional economic theory based on utility and welfare is simple as he is skeptical of the use of mathematical expressions that justify consumption as a reason for existence. This may push him into philosophy, but he is careful in letting us know that Economics is also about Production,Quality and Ethics.

If you want more, I'll have to read his stuff again, and I don't feel like doing that right now. I'm a little tied up, literally...:)

Does this mean you'll revert your revert on my revert, or should I do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.154.224 (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ruskin was much more than just an economist and his work in that area is already mentioned at other spots in the article. You also need to learn how things work on Wikipedia. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. You will find that you need to take your concerns to the talk page of the article to try and change the current consensus on how the article is laid out. MarnetteD | Talk 14:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I need a little help here. I am trying to edit the Leontyne Price article. But it appears to be too large to edit the first paragraph. How do I go about doing that? I want to add her Spingarn Medal. Thanks - Michael David (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm that is odd. I'm not sure why it wouldn't let you edit. I know so little about computers that it could be any number of things. If it is an ongoing problem you might ask at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). In the meantime I went ahead and added it to fifth paragraph in the lede in chrono order with the other awards mentioned. You are certainly free to add or change it as you wish. Sorry I didn't have a better answer. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with adding the medal to her article. I am going to check the Village Pump to see if I can find out what the problem I'm having is. - Michael David (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you might be interested to know that I've done a complete overhaul of Shakespeare: The Animated Tales (added an infobox, tidied up formatting etc) and also (finally) created a page for An Age of Kings. There's not a huge amount of info on it, mainly just cast lists with some minimal background stuff, but at least the page exists. The Hollow Crown also needs some work when I can get around to it, and of course, I'm still working on my Shakespeare on film and Shakespeare on TV articles. All the best. Bertaut (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

M, the "it's not American!" brigade are back at it on the Downton Abbey article. We're going to need to keep an eye on it; there's a rather aggressive IP describing the addition of /American as misrepresentation. It also brings up a larger issue -- how many other similar BBC/PBS or ITV/PBS co-productions are not correctly labeled as British/American. I never wanted to take on the avid strain of British nationalism that appears at such times, so I've never attempted to change many (I tried with Robin Hood, which was a BBC/BBC American co-production when it started and am still nursing the wounds). But maybe it's time. --Drmargi (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I just got online and saw what you are talking about. Oddly, it is someone from Maryland who is refusing to note the reference. I would think that as long as we have solid refs we are on solid ground in making our case. I wonder if they realize that in this day and age of tight budgets many of these shows wouldn't get made without the money from US PBS stations. MarnetteD | Talk 14:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the IP being from MD; I meant to mention that. But it's largely hit-and-run IP's making the reverts. They don't get that they don't get to make a judgment on what is/isn't a co-production. Rebecca Eaton. WGBH, and PBS are part of the production, decision-making, funding, you name it. That makes it British/American, as the sources support. --Drmargi (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marnette, I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. The essence of it is a peer review system in relation to challenged unilateral edits. If you are not interested then no worries, it won't be for everyone, I'm just testing the waters at this stage to see how much interest there would be in such a co-ordinated task force. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! DonQuixote (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

See [1], click the Amazon link. Thought the book might interest you and you might want a copy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

900 minutes!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you why you undid all the changes I'd made to the "Naked" entry? Especially the participial constructions, that baffles me completely. Thanks, Cocolacoste 01:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC) --Cocolacoste 01:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocolacoste (talk • contribs)

My mistake (and apologies) for missing several of your improvements. I was removing the fields in the infobox that you added which were deactivated almost two years ago and no longer show when saved but I missed the other work that you did. I restore the bulk of your work but you will want to double check in case i Missed something. MarnetteD | Talk 01:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You had bad markup around WP:EGG. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FP%C3%A9_de_Chinelo&diff=516876462&oldid=516873935 —Kww(talk) 20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanx. I just now found it and refiled the case. It is often the simplest things that are the hardest to track down. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that the recent unsourced additions to Mad Monster Party are a hoax which we are tracking at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer. Elizium23 (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on this. I am glad you are here and have your eyes open. You are an asset to the project. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Your vigilance is always appreciated as well. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb _words^deeds 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I appreciate the time that you took to let me know. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The scoop11. Please remember it is important to warn disruptive editors appropriately, and report when necessary in order to stop the disruption. We might request page protection on the article Mad Monster Party rather than pile on in an edit war. Elizium23 (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for filing the report. I am sure that you will have noticed that I added a request about the info to this persons talk page about the info that they keep trying to force into the article. That was last night before I headed to meet the sandman. I was hoping that would at least bring them to the talk page. Sadly, I see that it hasn't so I have issued a warning this morning. If you are so inclined you might add a comment to the thread that I started. Thanks again for your vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 15:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I invite you to take part in this discussion of an improvement to the plot I am trying to put forward. Thanks --JTBX (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at this. I am not telling you whether or how you should respond, but I do think you should be aware of his one-sided version of events. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Marnette. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) as a further extension of the current debate on channel listings on Wikipedia. Your input would be appreciated doktorb _words^deeds 17:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the barnstar! It's been a while since I've received one. :) Have a good week! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Gad, the nationalism at Downton. I finally called it for what it is -- the co-production nature of the show is more than adequately sourced, and yet they STILL challenge it. Argh! --Drmargi (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

They just can't take facts as an answer. Hehe. If you get a chance check your email because you have a Halloween treat waiting for you. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 00:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I just did! It's fabulous. You must be psychic; you have really nailed my taste. Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, MarnetteD. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

It would seem that he has learnt nothing and ignores your good advice. This is the latest example. Best regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I reported the other user on the edit warring noticeboard. I haven't seen the film since about 1998 so I can't remember the plot. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

He/she is now discussing on the talk page and apologized for edit-warring, so could you come back to the discussion? Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to both for your good wishes. Having pleasant weather here and enjoying the autumn sunshine. Perhaps, when you return to editing you would be kind enough to look at this for me. The editor is insisting on keeping an article discussion – which he started on my Talk page – off the article's Talk page. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 18:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

IMO you are quite right to keep the discussion on the talk page. Although a fractious one WikiP is supposed to be a community and the work towards consensus should involve everyone that is interested in a given subject. I have seen that kind of discussion moved to the talk page all the time so there is a precedence for your action. Hope this is of some help. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is a great help. Thank you. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 22:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Marnette. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. If interested, see also a new AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello MarnetteD - I don't know if you've seen the talk page discussion today regarding expanding the lede on James Earl Jones, but it might be of interest to you. While I don't object to a more comprehensive lede, the editor seems to insist that Darth Vader occupy a prominent place there, which I regard as problematic. Your thoughts on this would be valuable. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! DonQuixote (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey MarnetteD, I got your message. CottonClark seems to have stopped editing, at least for now. If they start up again doing the same thing then perhaps the AIV report will be more successful. Taking things to ANI is rarely worth the effort but if the problem persists then I will go there. It's such odd edits from this person, combining text from an article about a radio station with that of an article about a children's program. I've been around this block a few times but I honestly can't tell if this is straight up vandalism or just gross incompetence. Oh well, I've got my eye on them so we'll see. See ya' around! SQGibbon (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again... ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Too true and just like Xmas catalogs it seems to start earlier each year. A couple other Xmas articles on my watchlist have been getting hit since before Halloween. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I heard a Frank Sinatra Christmas song on the radio today, and it annoyed me. I like Christmas, I like Frank Sinatra, and I like that particular song, but it's too darn early! Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marnette. I considered rolling back this edit, assuming good faith, but I thought it would be better to ask you about it. I agree that it's a little strange that James Earl Jones had an infobox designed for comedians, but looking at that version of the article, it accurately presented a list of awards he's received. Thinking primarily of a reader's experience, it's hard to see how this template, though apparently inaccurate from an editor's point of view, detracts from the article's quality. I also looked for the MOS section on actors that you referred to, but I couldn't find one. I'm sure this is just a mistake on my part, and perhaps the section in question discourages such infoboxes of awards. Could you point me in that direction? Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your note. Several years ago - in fact I think it was before the actors project was split from the film project - consensus was reached to not have awards in the infobox. First and foremost it was a POV problem. Oscars, and Emmys may be better known but they aren't necessarily more important that Tonys, Baftas, SAGs and the numerous others. The other main problem is infobox bloat - for example can you imagine how stuffed Meryl Streep infobox of this sort would be - it would probably longer than her whole article. It was deemed that these were better handled in a separate awards section within the article or even a stand alone article as Ms Streep has for her awards. Now as I say this was several years ago and if you think it should be reassessed you might want to open discussions at the actor project or even the BLP project to see what new editors think. I hope this answers some of your questions and my apologies if it doesn't. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I don't know if I agree with that decision. I think presenting awards without cluttering a page is a stylistic issue with straightforward solutions; see Anson Dorrance as an example of a sports figure with decades of major awards. On the other hand, the current presentation of awards for films and actors, in wikitables towards the bottom of the article, seems fine as well. At any rate, your edit was probably the right thing to do. Thanks again for the explanation. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Sports figures are handled by a different wikiproject so I can't speak to their standards. The page you linked to only mentions the awards in the infobox so that makes sense. Almost every actor has a separate awards section in the body of the article i.e. James Earl Jones#Awards so the infobox is redundant. Also there are a great many more awards for actors. At one point we had about 25 different ones in the infobox template. I can understand your concerns so please feel free to start a discussion about them if you are so inclined. Thanks for the work that you do here at WikiP. Happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that comment from my user page. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome! MarnetteD | Talk 02:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The parent cat of American film (or whatever country), is OK to have on all film articles. Please see WP:FILMCAT and this discussion that links to WP:DUPCAT. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I was editing on old info. Please let me know if you catch anything else as I work my way through the silent films and thanks, also, for all your work in creating them. MarnetteD | Talk 12:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This has caused confusion before, and I can recall having to explain to novice editors that, in this case, the parent cat has to remain, even if subcats are also present. Said users almost invariably asked why, and pointed out that this seems to violate the general rule about parent cats and subcats. It's good to have a link to point them to. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I just saw your reversion here, and it fits a pattern I noticed over at the Mean Streets article: Jjjakegittes's edits are nearly identical to those of Jkta97. I think it is clear that they are the same person. This is not necessarily a problem, as Jkta seems to have stopped editing after receiving a long series of warnings for unhelpful edits, and he is not blocked, so there is no block evasion issue. It is dishonest, though, to create a new account and go right back to making the same problematic edits one made with a different name. Clearly, the message has not sunk in. This does merit our attention, though.

I hope this message finds you well. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanx for the good wishes. I hadn't put things together regarding the names but I think your SPIdey senses are correct - especially regarding the editing pattern. I will keep my eyes open for further developments. Cheers to you too! MarnetteD | Talk 18:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice pun on spidey, too! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, MarnetteD! After discovering 76.15.47.22 (talk · contribs) I have moved the VCV subpage to LTA. I and others greatly appreciate your efforts to stop this "pest", and I felt I should let you know about the move. I will probably tidy up the report in the future, but it had to be moved to the proper place since he will not give up vandalizing our articles. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed all of the work that you were having to do. Thanks for letting me know about the move. As ever thanks for your vigilance in dealing with this "pest" and seasons greetings to you and yours!! MarnetteD | Talk 21:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

He's not getting any better, which sucks for us. Moving more heavily to "uncredited" roles, like Alec Baldwin as "Adult Rocky/Narrator".[2] There are other changes in behavior that I won't disclose per WP:BEANS, but... yeah, I pretty much want to see this editor refrain from contributing here ever again. Happy holidays to you and yours as well, and thanks as always for your help with him (and your greater efforts here)! Doc talk 21:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the edits of User:116.124.69.188 to Wicked (musical). Although it's a domain that the BH has never used, the edit certainly seems similar, as is ignoring my post om their talk page. The IP geolocates to South Korea, I think I remember reading something about socks using an anonymizer from there. What do you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The one thing that seems a bit different to me is that most of the edits are about specific cast members of the musicals edited. That is as opposed to fabricating whole new musicals that aren't even a gleam in the eye of any producers. But remember that I have only been aware of BH for the last few months so if s/he has edited like this before than you should discount my observation. If any of the edits are legit they should certainly be able to provide a source for them. Cheers and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked very hard for any confirmation and could find nothing. Their other recent edits don't look at all like the BH, though, so I'm jkst not sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Season's Greetings to you too! DonQuixote (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Thank you very much for the kind holiday wishes, and right back atcha! I've been dealing with a pretty stressful content dispute lately that I won't deny has been sapping my enthusiasm, so it's especially nice to get this kind of message. Looking forward to working with you in '13! Doniago (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Snoozlepet (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Snoozlepet (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and a Merry Christmas to you too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas greetings, have a nice holiday! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays from the Puppy! May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go. -- KillerChihuahua 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Nightscream (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, MarnetteD. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi. I hope you'll join me at a discussion at Talk:James Earl Jones#Citation requests. We're experienced editors and I'm sure we can make a good-faith attempt at consensus. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was replying there when you left your message here so we crossed in our edits. I have to go run errands now so I won't see your next reply there for a few hours. Thanks for your message here and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD,

Regarding these edits ([3], [4]), and you reverting them ([5], [6]).

The quote itself is verified by:

• "Cars 2 - Script". IMSDb. Retrieved December 15, 2012. HOLLEY: Trying to turn back time. If I can just reverse the polarity..
• "Cars 2 - Memorable quotes". IMDb. Retrieved December 31, 2012. Holley Shiftwell: Trying to turn back time. If I can just reverse the polarity...

Though I understand your case for WP:SYNTH, I find that rather implausible. I can equally put the ball in your court by making a case for "citation needed" regarding the claim that reverse the polarity is "not exclusive to DW". Feel free to prove me otherwise, but I think at the time I made the edit there was no reason to believe otherwise as article Reverse the polarity makes no mention of this being "not exclusive to that show and [having] actual scientific usage".

Polarity is most certainly genuinely science related (Chemical polarity, Polarity (physics), ..). But the supposed action of "reversing" it is (as far as I know) utter non-sense and a textbook case of fiction technobabble as there is no such thing as "reversing polarity".

Given that you're a Doctor Who fan, and Pixar's history of making popular references and geekism (such as inside jokes), I think we both know this is a DW reference.

Back to searching for a source testifying to believing this Cars 2 line is a DW reference, I come up short unfortunately. I found two, but they aren't published in very trustworthy contexts:

• "Cars 2 Third Doctor Reference!". Third Time's The Charm.
• Forum topic "Cars 2 Easter Eggs and References.". Pixar Planet.

Any suggestions? – Krinkle (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Marnette is right here. "Reversing the polarity" is a time-honored science fiction film trope, used in many instances. (The original Star Trek being one that comes to mind, with Scotty up the Jeffries Tube.) The whole thing could, possibly, go back to that breaking-the-sound-barrier film (can't recall the name), in which the pilot undoes the danger he's in by pulling back on the stick instead of pushing forward (which I'm told is utter nonsense). In any case, I don't think that "reversing polarity" can be specifically identified as an homage to Doctor Who, not with all the other instances of it out there in the field's history, so you really do need to get a reliable source that says that it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and, not so incidentally, you cannot put the ball into Marnette;s court, because it is you who is making a specific claim and attempting to put it into an article, so Wikipedia policy is that (once that claim is contested), it is you who needs to provide a citation from a reliable source so that other editors can verify the claim. Marnette has no obligation to do likewise, because he's not trying to put an assertion into an article. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't state it better then Beyond My Ken has already done. I will add that IMDb cannot be used as a source. Anyone can submit items to them and they do almost no fact checking so all sorts of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH happens there all the time. The only way that a connection to Dr Who can be added to the article is if you can find an interview with the scriptwriters where they state that they we referencing Dr Who on purpose. MarnetteD | Talk 23:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary: My mistake, and my apology. I made an assumption from the user name, and then thought I had typoed. Absolutely no problem with your correcting it, and I'll remember in the future. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marnette, do the topics of editing seem familiar with Althemise (talk · contribs)? He's even reverting old edits he made himself and calling them vandalism. (?!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just got online so this reply comes after the editor has been blocked oops I mean after you have tagged his userpage. I think that your WP:SPIdey sense is correct. He did try to do enough legit edits to muddy the water this time but his adding "adventure" to numerous articles and his post on your talk page about The Hobbit are the dead giveaways. We may need to check all of his edits and I will continue to do so as time allows. Thanks, as always, for your vigilance. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, re this revert: I've started a thread at Talk:Third Doctor#Companions, again. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)