User talk:Daedalus71

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, Daedalus71, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I personally invite you to do so in my own sandbox (just follow the simple rules!). Again, welcome! Martin Porcheron 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Omnicide

An editor has nominated Omnicide, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnicide and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we lost the argument on this one; I thought the article was a keeper. I suggest merging the content to Human extinction; you can always spin it back out again if you expand the section with enough good sourced material.

By the way, you might also consider putting something on your user page - a redirect to your talk page if nothing else. I think it's better to have a blue link when you sign comments rather than a red link. You are less likely to be mistaken for a brand new editor or a possible vandal.--Kubigula (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecocide

I have rewritten the Ecocide artice. At Talk:Ecocide you quoted references to the use of the word in the 60s and 70s (as does dictionary.com). Can you dig out those references and add them to the article? Cheers. Alan Liefting 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide definitions

Please see Talk:Genocide definitions. Ping --Philip Baird Shearer 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

continuity bit removal

Because the statement (removed here) from Journey's End:

This same music played during the episode Family of Blood, during the scene in which John Smith (the Doctor, transformed into a human by the Chameleon Arch) and Joan Redfern have a shared precognition of what their life together would have been like, up to and including Smith's death Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. In the latter scene, John Smith's last act is to ask "is everyone safe?", meaning his children; on learning that they are, he says "thank you" and passes away. Ironically, at the close of Journey's End, the Doctor has made sure that all of his "children" - the Children of Time – are safe, and his last words in the episode are "thank you".

was evaluative, and therefore synthesis. The citations in the removed area were referring to the article noting The Family of Blood, and not to a notable comparison between that and Journey's End. Additionally, the 'Children of Time' reference - also uncited - was wikilinked to Companion (Doctor Who), and that term doesn't appear anywhere in that article, cited or otherwise.

That was why I removed it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for presenting your arguments so cogently, Daedaulus/Chris (not sure which to call you, so feel free to clarify); so many folk add so much drama to their posts that the original point tends to meander, so kudos to you. :)

My issue of the synthesis bits is that it is you connecting the similarities between these two episodes, and not a citable third party (like a reviewer or a member of the cast/crew). This originally came up in the episodic articles with the mentioning of the squareness gun. Before it was cited, it was an editor connecting the fact that it had appeared in an earlier episode. Once everyone learned there what synthesis was, and how to avoid original research by simply citing someone else noting it, everything was copacetic.

My main issue with synthesis is that there are a lot of Who fans in the project and active in the articles who eat, sleep and breathe Doctor Who. Just like a math teacher who is a whiz at high calculus, they cannot fathom why anyone would not wish to immerse themselves in the subject, and wouldn't want to know all the tiniest details of the episode. This oversight tends to exclude a lot of readers coming to the article for the first time, who may be new to the article or subject. That level of detail simply makes a lot of them move on to the next article. Synthesis involves one person advancing a position that two things are connected - in this case, the usage of music and the comparison of children from two separate episodes. As doing so is a violation of one of our cope policies, we aren't allowed to do it.

The 'ironically' usage was part of what I was referring to by 'evaluative', the other part being the comparison of the Children of Time as the Doctor's children to that of "John Smith's" children.

Hope that explains matters better for you. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris - yeah, sorry about undoing the re-addition. Before we add it back in, let's make sure we can find agreement first, okay?

I am sorry if you think I am calling you fannish - maybe I need to find a word with less 'icky' ascribed to it - but I do think that there is a proximity issue. You might be too into DW to see that a neophyte might not get the same nuances you do - 'forest for the trees and all that' - and head off in another direction, certainly not our intended goal. However, being a fan isn't the real source of the synthesis; being far smarter than the critics who review the show is the crux of the problem.

Your evaluation of my synthesis argument is mostly accurate (and bully for you in using concatenation correctly in a sentence :) I've never had the opportunity to do so); to avoid any synthesis, we need to have someone who is not an editor (ie, an outside, reliable, verifiable source) to say the same thing - to make those connections. That it is poignant is undeniable; it clearly indicates you are a writer of some talent. I would recommend that you get a job with a news source and start writing reviews. Then you could be citable! :D

Until then, though, I think our hands are tied. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I just performed my end of week archival, to keep my user talk page from getting too cluttered. It didn't mean that I was done with the conversation if you still had concerns. The link to that conversation can be found here if you wanted to continue under a new section or subsection. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]