User talk:Dolmance

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as those in Doctor Who fandom, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing!
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Doctor Who fandom. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view and attribution

You are certainly correct that there are many people who consider Doctor Who merely a children's programme, and who regard dedicated Doctor Who fans as "anoraks" and "geeks". The point, however, is that for the purposes of Wikipedia such opinions have to be attributed to reliable sources. I'm not sure where you got the phrase "major cultural icon" from, but the parts of the Doctor Who article which indicate that the programme is a significant part of British culture are cited with examples from the UK government-supported "Icons of England" site [1] and The Economist [2]. If you can find similarly authoritative sources for the opinions you state, they can be included in the articles. Without such citations, the statements are original research, and as such are unacceptable for Wikipedia.

It is possible that due to systemic bias the Doctor Who articles are excessively laudatory in tone, and do not give enough weight to critical points of view. However, the answer to this problem is not to add unsourced opinions. If you think that an article is not neutral in its tone, you can raise the issue on its talk page. Several templates also exist to point out problems with neutrality, and are listed at Wikipedia:Resolving Disputes/Templates. I hope that we can work together to find common ground and improve the articles. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add unsourced material to biographies, especially if controversial

You've been warned about citing sources before. If you continue to ignore our content policies, you will be blocked from editing. Instead, consider joining Wikipedia's mentoring program so you can learn how to contribute properly.

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Britt Ekland. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 21:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Talk:Colin Baker

Thank you for pointing out the omission of Colin Baker's early career highlights. The article has now been expanded, with mention of Baker's roles in The Roads to Freedom and War and Peace. However, in future it would be better if you could make suggestions like this in a more civil manner, without insulting other Wikipedia editors by implication. You are welcome to your opinions about Doctor Who and its fans, but comments like the one you made at Talk:Colin Baker are unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. Civility is a core principle at Wikipedia, and if you can't participate in a civil manner you may wish to reconsider your participation here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just glanced over some of your other contributions, and I've noticed a pattern. You frequently add comments in articles about British actors and performers talking about the differences between their public perception in the US and the UK, often beginning with phrases like "American fans are often surprised to discover that..." This is original research, unless you can provide a citation to a reliable source which directly supports the assertion. You may have a point that the articles don't accurately reflect the public perception of these individuals in the UK, but your attempts to correct this imbalance are flawed. They come across as statements of opinion, rather than sourced facts. In addition, because Wikipedia has a very strict rule about negative or defamatory statements in articles about living people, it's all the more important that any comment about how an actor or performer is viewed by the public be cited to a reliable source, and not give undue weight to negative views.

In future, if you come upon an article which you think presents an actor or performer inaccurately, it would be best to discuss the matter (in a civil, polite fashion) on its talk page, rather than adding countervailing opinions to the article itself. In short: please ensure that future edits are neutral in tone and sourced to reliable sources. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Roger Moore are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Thank you. Mighty Antar 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Are You Being Served? for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. Redfarmer (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Barrymore, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Strike It Rich, Challenge and Greg Scott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Davidson (comedian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]