This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Comments like these are unacceptable and the accusation of wikilawyering border on violation of our NPA policy. Address the edits and not the editor. I would ask you to remain calm and polite. We disagree, that's all. I did not kick your dog or put your favorite Doctor Who dolly in the blender. You are an admin, and people look to you to set a good example. If you find yourself unable to engage civilly with me, I recommend you go elsewhere. Alternatively, you have the option of de-sysopping so your admin status is not threatened by bad behavior. Let's not have to broach this sucject again, okay? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
See previous discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Jan 2008#Internet Explorer bug fix. Could you please provide some references that the bug really affects IE7? Because I cannot find any info except that link I shared in November. — AlexSm 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that a particular good use of buttons? -- Allemandtando ( talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see why we need a third-party source - as the director, Harper would be a reliable source on whether it's a two- or three-parter; RTD didn't do it all in isolation, and is not the only reliable source - for instance, Tennant, Tate, Piper, Collinson, and Gardner, I think, would be as reliable as each other when it comes to how it's set out, seeing as they're in the "inner circle". Sceptre ( talk) 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you being the administrator to block was highly inappropriate, as you clearly in a dispute with him. That aside, I fail to see any truly disruptive editing on the page you link. Would you should me what you consider "disruptive, and why? I intend to unblock him otherwise. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to have an apology, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Edokter, you're fired. Seriously, tho, I wish I had the authority to do such a thing. In fact, I wish anyone on Wikipedia other than Jimbo/ArbCom has the authority to do this. Unfortunately for the community, there is no mechanism of recalling/firing you. However, you should be aware that for all intents and purposes you're fired! I think you should do the most appropriate thing which is offer a full, unconditional apology to Arcayne and, before or after that, resign as an admin. Poor Arcayne will now have a block forever in his block log. You will have nothing, tho I wish that wasn't the case. As an admin you must be held to a higher standard. So, please, resign and go back to simply editing the encyclopedia. Bstone ( talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually think the block was justified, and Edokter's apology more contrite than it needed to be. Arcayne had been told and shown so many times that the consensus was to keep cast-lists as they were, so "boldly changing the guideline" when he knows he's against consensus is disruptive. Edokter's points about Arcayne's cruft-warring behaviour were right on the spot and I think he has acted fairly through this - more so than I would have expected or hoped for - in a nice way! ╟─ Treasury Tag╬ contribs─╢ 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Below is not any kind of demand, it is advice intended to help the community keep you as an administrator.
You were sucked or suckered into a major blunder. Easily, you could lose your adminship over this. You already know that it was an error. If you are to avoid going down the path of User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, two recent cases I'm familiar with, it is urgent that you:
There are behavioral issues to be addressed for Arcayne. Let the community do that, be very careful to abandon any personal agenda with respect to him. Other people have eyes and can see. I will, for example, make a brief response to what is above. -- Abd ( talk) 03:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Would appreciate your further input into our discussion regarding fairuse on the NFCC talk page. There are some good debates happening there, possibly with some reform in the works. Might also do you some good to get away from the areas where you are having trouble at the moment? Anyways, could use always use your help. ^_^ -- Dragon695 ( talk) 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I was consistent when I went through the new series episodes - I changed them all to "2nd episode of 3-part story" because it's less ambiguous than "2 of 3 episodes". Do you mind reverting back? As it stands, they're less consistent now because they use "mins" whereas the rest of the new series uses "minutes" Sceptre ( talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
For pages that are about individual episodes whether it's a part of a series or not has nothing to do with length. I have a suggestion, If you truly want to do it the right way you should add a new field to the template for "subseries".-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should talk about that on WT:DW before making such changes. I have reverted 3 changes by Sceptre thus, because I did not know about this discussion here. It's not really good if you talk only between yourselves and leave out others who will not find such discussion here easily. The template at WP:DW#Episode_pages should be followed or changed if needed. -- SoWhy Talk 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it is a matter wherein it should be discussed in the WikiProject Talk, as the changes affect multiple areas? I was going to ask him to take the discussion there, but saw your comments there. Considering our friction before, I thought it best to talk to you first and get your feedback. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
People come to the page to see where it fits in the Dr. Who series...there's nothing wrong with telling them that the Chirstmas special is next. Also (but certainly not the linch pin of any argument to keep the info) you realize we're going to have a title for this thing inabout 2 hours.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we can just about get away with the current length - it stays below ten words per minute, and is a bit of a tangled plot. Sceptre ( talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Time Lord was one of the first Grawp move vandalism targets, and he's lately been going back and revisiting his earlier targets. But if you want to leave it unprotected, fine with me. NawlinWiki ( talk) 12:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You say the NFCC demands reference? What is the NFCC?? Sean Martin ( talk) 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you seemingly at random, but I need a Dutch speaker for a favour. Could you check out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patricia_Remak and the article and make sure that the references (which are mostly in Dutch) support what is said in the article. I was tempted to remove the Wikipedia section anyway for WP:UNDUE but without being able to check the refs, I'm somewhat hesitant. Thanks. CIreland ( talk) 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, couldn't resist using that as a section header. Would you have any objection to redirecting this to the regular article What the fuck? It looks like a reasonable redirect to me, but - since you deleted it today - I thought I'd check with you first. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually I did revert the edit I meant to. I find the phrase "alternate universe" ungrammatical and grating. Alternate is a verb. But there is enough Dr Who source material in the house for me to see if it is "canonical" usage. Rachel Pearce ( talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Fasach moved the anon's comment. I undid hat, as we don't get to refactor others' posts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Edokter,
I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and I wanted to reassure you that making Portal:Wikipedia the main page should not cause you any headaches. Moving the main page would be a two-step process:
The URL would change like you wanted: http://en.wikipedia.org/ would point to directly to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Wikipedia as part of step 1. And when editing Portal:Wikipedia, "Editing Portal:Wikipedia" is prominently displayed, so editing should still be straightforward and not very confusing.
Anyway, there are actually a substantial number of problems that moving the main page into the Portal namespace would solve:
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
would also be accurate instead of being off by one.I hope this explanation helps resolve your concerns. — Remember the dot ( talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
What happened to this page? Why did you delete it? Jasonfward ( talk) 00:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Edokter, You've just removed the external link to the Wilts & Gloucester Standard I placed on the K-9 and Company page, citing it as a dead link. I can find nothing wrong with it. Can you explain please? Jongleur100 ( talk) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for removing the planets image - that's simply because I can't think of a critically commentative caption for either, and lack of one may cause the FAC to fail. I think that, barring critical commentary for either, we should suspend any reinsertion of the image until after the FAC, and even then we should discuss and formulate a consensus that the image provides critical commentary. Sceptre ( talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! On 23 July, you edited the automatic edit summaries to replace code that I added with a space that alters their appearance. Could you please elaborate on your edit summary ("Unsupported unicode")? Thanks! — David Levy 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Lerdthenerd (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
heres a cookie, I was reading through you're talk page and was upset to find you might lose you're adminship for blocking Arcayne, I dont want to see you lose the mop infact i agree with block i've just arrived back from haitus and i have a message on my talk page from Arcayne, saying i'm a fannnish zealot i find that very rude.-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 08:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Edokter,
I am writing to inform you to explain your wish on my page being deleted. I would like to ask you that the Trickster is a crucial part of recent Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures. The Trickster is quite essential and I would like The Trickster's page not to be deleted. He is just like the Slitheen, Daleks, Cybermen et al. I implore you please, please, please, please, please restore the page, please.
Yours sincerely, Ratzo-- Ratzo ( talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Irrel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This guideline specifically states "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources", and "This guideline does not apply to inline citations, which appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." David Underdown ( talk) 12:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, can you please take a look at this so called article. I think it needs to be speedied but i cant think of the right criteria. Its in good faith but i dont think it belongs in the pedia. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ( talk) 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Edokter! I know you know the navboxes fairly well and was hoping you could help me. I had posted a question at Template talk:Navbox with collapsible groups#Expand more than one section and was hoping for some input. Rgrds. -- Tombstone ( talk) 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. Just fyi, Mzajac accidentally deleted some of my original message, which I've now replaced (at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Minimums). Hopefully it makes more sense intact ;) -- Quiddity ( talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
2nd fyi: I created User:Edokter/fonttest/screenshots in your userspace, hope that's ok (Feel free to move it into my userspace if you prefer). I wasn't sure whether or where to link to it from User:Edokter/fonttest; please do, if you think it is useful. I also mentioned it in two threads at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Thanks again :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 04:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I missed your reply before at the Village Pump -- just replied there, rather late. Interested in your thoughts. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_47#New_templates_for_user_page_.22trophy_cases.22 - Pete ( talk) 07:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This was asked and answered before . In that case about Geo blocking [1]. but the principle still applies here . The fact you or a large number of people can't see them doesn't make them non acceptable . Garda40 ( talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Edokter. I noticed that you deleted the redirect at Day of the Clown. I've also seen other redirects that you've deleted in the past, things like Aliens of London (Doctor Who). I don't think that deletion of these redirects is necessary or useful. Remember, redirects are cheap, and if a page has existed at a given title for any length of time, it's always possible that someone somewhere out there on the web has linked to the page at its old name. Furthermore, the naming guideline at WP:TV-NC recommends that redirects be created for TV episodes, so redirects like Aliens of London (Doctor Who) are actually preferred. (That recommendation came about as a compromise with editors who wanted all TV episode articles to carry disambiguation, whether they needed it or not.)
If a redirect comes from page move vandalism, or is an implausible misspelling, then of course it's fine to delete it. But it's conceivable that someone looking for the most recent SJA serial might type in Day of the Clown, and they should be able to be taken straight to the article they want. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just going by the recommendations at WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic. It doesn't say anything about the term being "inseparable from the subject" — it just says that if there is a primary topic (which there is, in this case), that should be listed first, separated from the other entries. It's not that I think that the character Jack Harkness deserves special emphasis — it's just that among those meanings for "Jack Harkness", the character is the primary topic.
Is there a reason why you think that the guideline for linking to a primary topic shouldn't apply in this case? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Mark Verheiden is a Writer and he is the Co-Executive producer for BSG. He CONFIRMED that the episode titles are CORRECT. Stop removing them, and more importantly stop threatening me with no basis. 24.111.234.4 ( talk) 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you keep deleting these anonymous additions of the continued 4th season episode list. I side with you that who whoever is doing it complety fails to add a proper reference, so therefore you might want to consider asking for semi page protection. It will keep anons and newly created named accounts from editing the page. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and fill out a request. Just put on there like "Request page protection for a few days because of edit waring." You guys are violating the 3RR revertion policy - a potentially banable offense and if you keep it up you could both get banned and the anon could have the last laugh. Just a suggestion. Cyberia23 ( talk) 16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The page clearly states the title.... and that being "Ask Ausiello BLOG". Sorry.
24.111.234.4 (
talk) 00:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
With respect, you're wrong. Please read User_talk:Ckatz#Companion_.28Doctor_Who.29_fair_use_montage. Thank you. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(←) Our core policies actually allow fair use images; it is the extent of that which is left open to the community. You are set on your interpretation of that policy, and leave no room for other interpretations, and that comes off as a little paranoid. It is true I'd like to see a more liberal stance regarding fair use, and I am well entitled to that opinion. No RfC will change that. And there will always be "special cases", now and in the future; it is actually the driving force of Wikipedia in defining such policies. Trying to kill these discussions as you do is not a healthy way to participate in that process. Painting doom-scenarios is also of little use; whatever the consequences, they are a result of these discussions. — Edokter • Talk • 00:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
How you been? I'm fine. Since I copied my sig code from you, you may want to check this out: s:User_talk:Rlevse#issues_with_your_sig — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
In User talk:Kww#Montage images as navigational elements, Hammersoft claims that he knows your opinion on Image:CheetahGirlsDiscography.jpg, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 October_29#Image:CheetahGirlsDiscography.jpg.E2.80.8E. Please let me know if he represented your views accurately.— Kww( talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it not ok to use humanoid as a descriptive race term? I mean she clearly is "humanoid". -- Lemming64 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for jumping in and offering your opinion and guidance. SpikeJones ( talk) 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my talkpage. I'm new here and still have to find out how everything works. K9876.3467 ( talk) 20:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Redarding this comment:
The bug described in the linked discussion is caused by a hard-coded line-height of 9pt in the Clubs section
The editprotected request is regarding template:infobox Football biography 2, which doesn't have any such hard-coding. Can you see if I've overlooked something? if not, fancy reconsidering? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, in terms of this; how does it look now? I think it should be fixed. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Edokter,
No one has commented on this discussion for five days now. Would you mind performing the talk page move, deletion, recreation, and merge as you suggested? I would, but I don't have the capability to do so because I'm not an administrator.
Thanks,
Neelix ( talk) 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like somebody screwed up a page move on the Winnie the Pooh page. Can you check the discussion on Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh#Talk:Winnie the Pooh redirects here... and see what needs to happen to line stuff up correctly again? Yeah, I know - it's minor, but somebody pointed it out. SpikeJones ( talk) 14:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
This change has the rationale "that causes quite excessive spacing". The spacing in question is the default styling used by {{ infobox}}, so I don't think that the consensus is that it's excessive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
For whats its worth I also fully support the restoration of the link but I'm staying away from the project. There was never a clear consensus and actually more people disapproved of its removal than approved. The Bald One White cat 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the wrong referencing, I am new to wikipedia editing and still learning how to contribute correctly. Alexey Morgunov ( talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi - to save us from an edit war which I'm sure neither of us wants to get into, I've raised the Rosita issue on the Doctor Who Project page directing editors to " The Next Doctor" talk page and asking them to read and offer their thoughts. I know I've written there that Wikipedia doesn't work on consensus, but I'm not arrogant enough to assume that consensus isn't important in helping to resolve issues so if the other editors side with you and provide sources I will gladly back down. Thanks. Wolf of Fenric ( talk) 02:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I see you reverted my addition of NOINDEX... I think having all the ANI pages not indexed by external search sites is an outstanding idea... so adding NOINDEX to the template itself is a convenient way to achieve that. Perhaps you don't agree? let's talk about it at Template_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard_navbox_all#NOINDEX. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding adding Majenta Pryce to the Tenth Doctor page, it's fair enough if we don't do them, but in that case we need to go and remove them from all the Doctors pages, especially the 8th who has a list as long as my arm. Clockwork Apricot ( talk) 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I created an RfC to try to deal with that bit about the IDW series' relevancy, to try to drive the discussion out of the edit history. TheGreenFaerae ( talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edit appears to have broken the template. Previously the |image_size=
parameter would work regardless of whether "px
" was used or not; now it only seems to work if "px
" is specified, else the image will be displayed at it's full size.
PC78 (
talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
|image_size=
parameter does not include the "px", but this may be a largely hypothetical concern which in any case is down to an incorrect usage of the parameter. Sorry, my stress levels are running a little high at the moment.
PC78 (
talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Santa's Little Helper.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for helping with this. User:SebastianHelm has started the work. Check his contribs to see what he's up to and jump right in! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Edokter/Archive 3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to the TFD request I posted on ANI. AndrewRT( Talk) 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Edokter. I am puzzled by your closing rationale at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 28#Template:Country data Earth. It seems fairly clear to me that there was consensus to delete Template:Country data Earth, but to keep Template:Country data World. Why did you conclude that both should be kept? Thanks — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Given that you have both the necessary access level and what appears to be a fairly high level of knowledge of conditional wikimedia markup (as seen in your recent "'Optionalizing' parameters" edit to Template:Infobox Television episode), do you think you could implement the change requested in Template talk:Infobox Television episode#Prev.2FNext_and_crossover.2Fpilot_episodes? Besides my lack of admin access to change the template, I also lack the necessary in-depth knowledge of wikimedia conditionals.
Thanks. John Darrow ( talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey,
Could you have a look at the issue described here and see if it's something which could be fixed centrally in the {[tl|navbox}} template logic? Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
...for that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove my link to the Ralph Eggleston interview on his art direction for Wall-E? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is not true. I listed it on Wikipedia as an external link before someone shoplifted my intellectual property and added it to the body of the Wikipedia page -- without my permission which is what is called for by my web page. Because it's on the web doesn't mean it's for free use by anyone. I've worked very closely with Pixar on this piece for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't address my point. I put my link on first. Whoever changed it didn't contact me to ask for permission to remove my link because they were copying information from my writing. From my web page: NOTICE REGARDING TEXT AND IMAGE COPYRIGHTS: This article and interviews are owned by © Ron Barbagallo. All Rights Reserved. You may not quote or copy from this article without written permission. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Can you please contact me at (email redacted) so we can discuss this. Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So why does someone making a patchwork quilt out of my writing justify my link being removed entirely? I'd like to be able to tell Pixar the reason why imdb gets a link and we didn't. Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not the same thing and you know it. Can you tell me which Wikipedia person took the External Link out so I may contact them? Or, can you please re-post my link back in External Links. It's unbelievably rude to reduce Ralph's involvement and Pixar's commitment to this piece because someone decided to steal from my writing. - Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not the same because it's hidden in what graphic designers call "Mice Type." The Big Cartoon Database contacted me this week to get permission to post and to extrapolate from my text -- with my permission. Please let me [know] which Wikipedia person took the External Link out so I may contact them or, please can you re-post my link back in External Links. I find what you've done to my work offensive. - Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not the size of the font... "mice type" is a place where things get hidden or buried. It's not a reference to type size only. And, Ralph and I wouldn't have devoted so much time to doing this article -- if there was not a substantial amount of important information for the public. I have links like this one all over Wikipedia for my other works. People in countries all over the world put links to my pages on the External Links section (not in the reference section). This is the only time anyone has done this. Please post someone on the Talk page. I don't know how to do that. - Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Not from my perspective, this is as it is tragically all too often on Wikipedia, one person's personal perspective. I'd also be careful at suggesting conflicts of interest particularly when my site generates no income, and Ralph Eggleston and I received no income to create the piece. I'll simply relay what you've said to my colleagues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Well that was a thankless task then. Look at the older version of The Seeds of Doom and tell me it's not better. Forget it.-- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion about the background color at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). You might want to state your case there. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe I've found a bug of some sort in {{ Navbox with collapsible groups}}. The 'state' parameter doesn't seem to do what one would expect when set to 'autocollapse'. I initially discovered this when I used it in {{ IRC footer}} but I've been seeing the same problem in other templates that make use of {{ Navbox with collapsible groups}} too. Tothwolf ( talk) 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not analysis to say that we've only seen 7 Cylons so far. Maybe it's an issue with your English. Analyzing a show means taking something that wasn't clear, and trying to figure out how it works. Saying we've only seen 7 Cylons so far is just stating a fact that's plainly said in the show. And it's important context for casual viewers who might not know or remember that. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 23:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The past tense is appropriate for their only knowing about 7 models. It's not present knowledge. It was present knowledge before he told them about the the 8th model. But now that he's told them about the 8th model, their only knowing about 7 models is in the past. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we should keep the top ten critics' lists. You said it appeared in the reviews section but it didn't. The information can give more detailed looks for viewers as it appears in The Incredibles and Ratatouille pages. Mr Vinx ( talk) 10:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you made some edits to the {{ Navbox}} about a week ago, could you revert back to the previous version as it messes up {{ Navbox with columns}} (where the columns becomes padded inwards as can be seen in the docs and on the talk section for Navbox i created) — CHAN DLER #10 — 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Does undoing this edit have any effect on the proliferation of articles in Category:Tnavbar templates using obscure parameters? I noticed this new (hidden) category, which was created by Happy-melon this morning, popping up on some pages I was working on, and I note that the category now contains over 13,000 articles, expanding at the rate of several thousand per hour. Over 1,000 articles were added to it just since I started typing this message. - Dewelar ( talk) 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this [2] [3] something you'd be able help with or is this something that should go straight to DRV etc? I feel like he has wasted a bunch of my time playing games which makes me rather unhappy. I just want to get back to working on these templates and the articles that use them. Tothwolf ( talk) 02:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not making my objectives clearer but I tried to bring some sense into the Caprica mess.
Thanks for your contributions afterwards. Regards, Str1977 (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for considering my request. I noticed that you removed the {{
editprotected}}
} and marked the request "not done". Does this mean that this is the end of the process.
If this is true is there anywhere I can go to have the outcome reviewed. It is not a trivial request. The template {{
infobox mountain}} is in need of a cleanup and it is used in over 6,000 pages. It too uses a photo and a map. If I have no recourse then, in your opinion, would a second meta-template named something like {{
infobox2}}
be unacceptable.
I understand that the image field is open. But to hang two images and possible captions on it would in my opinion be a kludge. Wiki templates are is full of kludges mostly do to resistance to change. I seems sometimes that everyone is off doing there own thing with more or less success. I was hoping that the appearance of meta-templates would help clean things up a little. I hope that this issue can be resolved. -- droll [chat] 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting out the two tables; nice to see Richard Hurndall promoted to top of the 'others' list! I am an original 23rd November 1963 fan and father of a keen son-DW fan!
Nitramrekcap ( talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
-- 78.152.224.33 ( talk) 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding RPrev and RNext to Template:Infobox Television episode. Sometimes the simplest solutions really are the best ones. John Darrow ( talk) 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[temporary talkback fork removed by author]
You are being discussed here. I suggested he take it to WP:3RR. I hate it when the discussee is not notified. FYI. -- 64.85.222.144 ( talk) 14:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The Template Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your code optimization and readability of the new code for the {{ talkback}} template. :D Nn123645 ( talk) 20:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC) |
Given how much stuff has been put into the individual episodes, are you worried that redirect nuts like TTN would come in and do it, like what has happened with Entourage and That 70s Show? -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 05:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand if you may feel that Heroes Wiki isn't a reliable source, but in case you didn't notice, one of the additions I made was the upcoming episode I Am Sylar dated to air on April 20. When I originally created that page I sourced Heroes Wiki. Now that NBC has confirmed it through one of the more popular sources of reference used by this site, all of a sudden it becomes acceptible even though the information was available for a longer period of time on a site that's not used because it's a so-called unreliable source. In light of these recent events, you might want to cut Heroes Wiki a little slack and try using their information. If they were right about this one, who knows what else they're right about. SnakeChess511:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you happen to know if and how a cropped screenshot of http://www.scifi.com/caprica/ - showing the Caprica logo and principals - can be used?
Never done it before and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free gets confusing. It's promotional material, but in the form of a cropped screenshot of a (commercial) webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 ( talk) 11:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been going back and forth on the Cars (film) page with Michael Shumacher. The consensus has been to limit THAT page to the primary characters, and then list the other supporting folk on the List of Cars characters page. I believe (without looking, memory failing) that Shumacher made the cut on that page during the recent pruning. If he's not on the List Of... page, then feel free to add him there, but adding him on the primary page seems overkill at this time. Cheers! SpikeJones ( talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir would you kindly look at the talk page for the article before deleting part of the outside references article again, thank you.-- Collinsas ( talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
\You need to stop, and now. If you keep edit-warring, i will seek to have you blocked. Use the article discussion page and build a consensus. Please consider this your last warning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously Edokter, there is absolutely no method in the world of reasoning with Arcayne that doesn't involve giving him exactly what he wants. Everyone else is wrong, he is right, and his edit summaries are usually either tagged "wrong" or "sigh", which is extremely condescending. Take a look at the guy's 30 month-long history of abusing others and you'll see it for yourself. Oh, and before I get accused of "wikihounding" (which I probably will because that too is his MO) I came here to leave my comments of support for you before I even saw that he'd already commented in his typical fashion. Erikeltic ( talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Edokter, I've sent you an email regarding the Ireland Collaboration. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please see the discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials; it's actually a reasonable source, honest! Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 11:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 14:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious why you removed the transcluding of the BSG episode lists I made for seasons 1 and 2, why is it "not safe practice" to do so, when I have noticed that TV shows like LOST and Stargate SG-1 do so with their list. Thanks -- Mollsmolyneux ( talk) 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Edokter. I see that you deleted the redirect Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special, using the summary "(R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)". That doesn't seem appropriate to me; the redirect was created in July 2008, and most recently restored by Dragons flight in December 2008, with the justification "(redirects are cheap and this name was used internally.)" I agree with that judgment; if nothing else, it's relevant because there was an AfD under that name.
I know that you tend to see redirects as annoying and untidy, but they really are harmless. It might be useful to review the arguments at WP:RFD#HARMFUL and the following sections of that page. WP:RFD#KEEP specifically says not to delete a redirect if "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect." The AfD is an example of that very sort of internal link. I've recreated the redirect. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
More on redirect deletion mania: according to Wikipedia:Most missed articles there were nearly a thousand searches a day for 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who) in 2008. Just because you don't think a redirect is useful, that doesn't mean that it isn't. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Love the new picture on " Planet of the Dead" - well done! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much! May I also suggest that you unblock Man of wealth and taste, who is/was in exactly the same position as myself? Ta. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 15:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I'd have taken it off quite that quickly, given that it was a dynamic IP address! Still, as long as someone's keeping an eye on it, hopefully I don't suppose it matters. Black Kite 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you made a mistake in closing this as speedy delete per A3. A3 does not cover articles which have valid content, even if that content is speculation. I agree that it should be deleted but I think we should use the proper venues and not use speedy criteria that do not fit. Regards So Why 12:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for helping me out with Persondata !
I can see them now.
Thank you.
Tovojolo ( talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, as a member of the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, I was wondering are you and your fellow moderators going to be making a statement on the future actions as a result of the statement process? There are many editors waiting and are a bit confused by the lack of action and lack of decision making. A statement of any future action would be greatly appreciated. Regards MITH 15:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there not a way to request a bot to replace The Eclipse with The Eclipse (Heroes)? Might be best to do it now while the number of links for the Tribeca film remains small. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comes from the BFI National film theatre programme. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a138/hingethunder/torchwood-1.jpg Clockwork Apricot ( talk) 07:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, public-domain images such as File:USS ALAMO - lsd33 3.jpg do need source information, so that we can verify the claim of public-domain status. -- Carnildo ( talk) 22:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Edokter,
I sent you an e-mail on April 15. Did you receive it? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it best if another mediator is contacted, and resolution of the content issues pursued. I do not believe that the ANI discussion is going to advance any further and it may be best to step back from the article until some resolution is achieved. I am copying this message to the other two article contributors who posted to ANI. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In your last edit, you changed the name of a parameter from "navbar" to "Navbar". This broke a lot of templates. Please revert that part of your edit asap. Thanks. — Ms2ger ( talk) 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
do you really think that's too heavy on the preprocessor? I designed it to be nested (so it only has to hit conditionals for the parameters provided), so I'm having a hard time seeing at as being all that expensive. or am I misunderstanding something? -- Ludwigs2 14:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Edokter ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Completely unjustified and out-of-policy block that prevents nothing; other party is a totally non-communicative vandal that kept inserting nonsense. I do NOT report to 3RR in order to get blocked. Black Kite should unblock immediately. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Looking at the diffs provided, this block is fully justified and within policy as a clear cut 3RR violation. The editor who you reverted was neither inserting nonsense nor vandalism, and your 5 reverts do not meet any of the exceptions. - auburnpilot's sock 18:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Edokter ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
For crying out loud... The user was reverted by multiple editors and was being disruptive; Edit warring without communicating is equal to vandalism. And the block still does not prevent anything. Perhaps you should both brush up on blocking policy. — Edokter • Talk • 18:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
AuburnPiIot is right. WP:3RR exempts only "obvious" vandalism (bold in original), defined as "edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism". This does not apply to the edits you were reverting. Sandstein 20:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Edokter ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block is STILL wrong for being made 6 HOURS after the events. — Edokter • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC+2)
Decline reason:
This has been declined twice now by two different admins. I don't think continuing to make unblock requests will help your case in any way. Usually it leads to revocation of talk page editing instead. Regards So Why 21:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
As soon as the block expires, I will be file an ArbCom case agains Black Kite, Sandstein, AuburnPiIot and SoWhy. This is purely a punitive block; it proevents nothing. Many admins have been admonished for making such a block. I will not accept this block, as it is rotten to the core, and I am not one to take lightly to that. — Edokter • Talk • 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Really? Edokter, I know how frustrating it is to be blocked for a 3RR violation after filing the report (that is the exact situation that led to my 3RR block back in '06), but threatening to go to ArbCom over the block really is beneath you. If you think there's a case, by all means, but I'd encourage you to take a few steps away from the keyboard before doing it. - auburnpilot's sock 21:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Coming in a bit late here, I have to agree with those who are troubled by this punitive block. Edokter has raised valid points. The other user was clearly engaging in WP:Disruptive editing: repeatedly adding (using various wordings) the same unsourced statement, completely ignoring the opposing consensus shown by the reverts of the same change in March and April, and the relevant messages and warnings from other editors on their talk page. In fact, a look at the user's contribution history gives no indication that the user has ever bothered to interact with any other editors at all - not one change to any Talk: or User Talk: namespace pages, or to any WP: page other than WP:Introduction. Further, while WP:Vandalism may not explicitly say so, a quick search of the various namespaces for "repeated insertion of unsourced" shows that such behavior _is_ generally considered vandalism. As such, IMO Edokter would have been well within his rights (as an admin) to block the other user directly for the disruptive editing (perhaps that would have finally gotten the user to read and respond to the many issues raised on their talk page!) But instead he simply tried to de-vandalize the article in question - and was blocked for it. John Darrow ( talk) 19:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Comments like these are unacceptable and the accusation of wikilawyering border on violation of our NPA policy. Address the edits and not the editor. I would ask you to remain calm and polite. We disagree, that's all. I did not kick your dog or put your favorite Doctor Who dolly in the blender. You are an admin, and people look to you to set a good example. If you find yourself unable to engage civilly with me, I recommend you go elsewhere. Alternatively, you have the option of de-sysopping so your admin status is not threatened by bad behavior. Let's not have to broach this sucject again, okay? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
See previous discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Jan 2008#Internet Explorer bug fix. Could you please provide some references that the bug really affects IE7? Because I cannot find any info except that link I shared in November. — AlexSm 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that a particular good use of buttons? -- Allemandtando ( talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see why we need a third-party source - as the director, Harper would be a reliable source on whether it's a two- or three-parter; RTD didn't do it all in isolation, and is not the only reliable source - for instance, Tennant, Tate, Piper, Collinson, and Gardner, I think, would be as reliable as each other when it comes to how it's set out, seeing as they're in the "inner circle". Sceptre ( talk) 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you being the administrator to block was highly inappropriate, as you clearly in a dispute with him. That aside, I fail to see any truly disruptive editing on the page you link. Would you should me what you consider "disruptive, and why? I intend to unblock him otherwise. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to have an apology, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Edokter, you're fired. Seriously, tho, I wish I had the authority to do such a thing. In fact, I wish anyone on Wikipedia other than Jimbo/ArbCom has the authority to do this. Unfortunately for the community, there is no mechanism of recalling/firing you. However, you should be aware that for all intents and purposes you're fired! I think you should do the most appropriate thing which is offer a full, unconditional apology to Arcayne and, before or after that, resign as an admin. Poor Arcayne will now have a block forever in his block log. You will have nothing, tho I wish that wasn't the case. As an admin you must be held to a higher standard. So, please, resign and go back to simply editing the encyclopedia. Bstone ( talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually think the block was justified, and Edokter's apology more contrite than it needed to be. Arcayne had been told and shown so many times that the consensus was to keep cast-lists as they were, so "boldly changing the guideline" when he knows he's against consensus is disruptive. Edokter's points about Arcayne's cruft-warring behaviour were right on the spot and I think he has acted fairly through this - more so than I would have expected or hoped for - in a nice way! ╟─ Treasury Tag╬ contribs─╢ 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Below is not any kind of demand, it is advice intended to help the community keep you as an administrator.
You were sucked or suckered into a major blunder. Easily, you could lose your adminship over this. You already know that it was an error. If you are to avoid going down the path of User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, two recent cases I'm familiar with, it is urgent that you:
There are behavioral issues to be addressed for Arcayne. Let the community do that, be very careful to abandon any personal agenda with respect to him. Other people have eyes and can see. I will, for example, make a brief response to what is above. -- Abd ( talk) 03:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Would appreciate your further input into our discussion regarding fairuse on the NFCC talk page. There are some good debates happening there, possibly with some reform in the works. Might also do you some good to get away from the areas where you are having trouble at the moment? Anyways, could use always use your help. ^_^ -- Dragon695 ( talk) 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I was consistent when I went through the new series episodes - I changed them all to "2nd episode of 3-part story" because it's less ambiguous than "2 of 3 episodes". Do you mind reverting back? As it stands, they're less consistent now because they use "mins" whereas the rest of the new series uses "minutes" Sceptre ( talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
For pages that are about individual episodes whether it's a part of a series or not has nothing to do with length. I have a suggestion, If you truly want to do it the right way you should add a new field to the template for "subseries".-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should talk about that on WT:DW before making such changes. I have reverted 3 changes by Sceptre thus, because I did not know about this discussion here. It's not really good if you talk only between yourselves and leave out others who will not find such discussion here easily. The template at WP:DW#Episode_pages should be followed or changed if needed. -- SoWhy Talk 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it is a matter wherein it should be discussed in the WikiProject Talk, as the changes affect multiple areas? I was going to ask him to take the discussion there, but saw your comments there. Considering our friction before, I thought it best to talk to you first and get your feedback. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
People come to the page to see where it fits in the Dr. Who series...there's nothing wrong with telling them that the Chirstmas special is next. Also (but certainly not the linch pin of any argument to keep the info) you realize we're going to have a title for this thing inabout 2 hours.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we can just about get away with the current length - it stays below ten words per minute, and is a bit of a tangled plot. Sceptre ( talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Time Lord was one of the first Grawp move vandalism targets, and he's lately been going back and revisiting his earlier targets. But if you want to leave it unprotected, fine with me. NawlinWiki ( talk) 12:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You say the NFCC demands reference? What is the NFCC?? Sean Martin ( talk) 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you seemingly at random, but I need a Dutch speaker for a favour. Could you check out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patricia_Remak and the article and make sure that the references (which are mostly in Dutch) support what is said in the article. I was tempted to remove the Wikipedia section anyway for WP:UNDUE but without being able to check the refs, I'm somewhat hesitant. Thanks. CIreland ( talk) 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, couldn't resist using that as a section header. Would you have any objection to redirecting this to the regular article What the fuck? It looks like a reasonable redirect to me, but - since you deleted it today - I thought I'd check with you first. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually I did revert the edit I meant to. I find the phrase "alternate universe" ungrammatical and grating. Alternate is a verb. But there is enough Dr Who source material in the house for me to see if it is "canonical" usage. Rachel Pearce ( talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Fasach moved the anon's comment. I undid hat, as we don't get to refactor others' posts. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Edokter,
I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and I wanted to reassure you that making Portal:Wikipedia the main page should not cause you any headaches. Moving the main page would be a two-step process:
The URL would change like you wanted: http://en.wikipedia.org/ would point to directly to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Wikipedia as part of step 1. And when editing Portal:Wikipedia, "Editing Portal:Wikipedia" is prominently displayed, so editing should still be straightforward and not very confusing.
Anyway, there are actually a substantial number of problems that moving the main page into the Portal namespace would solve:
{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
would also be accurate instead of being off by one.I hope this explanation helps resolve your concerns. — Remember the dot ( talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
What happened to this page? Why did you delete it? Jasonfward ( talk) 00:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Edokter, You've just removed the external link to the Wilts & Gloucester Standard I placed on the K-9 and Company page, citing it as a dead link. I can find nothing wrong with it. Can you explain please? Jongleur100 ( talk) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for removing the planets image - that's simply because I can't think of a critically commentative caption for either, and lack of one may cause the FAC to fail. I think that, barring critical commentary for either, we should suspend any reinsertion of the image until after the FAC, and even then we should discuss and formulate a consensus that the image provides critical commentary. Sceptre ( talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! On 23 July, you edited the automatic edit summaries to replace code that I added with a space that alters their appearance. Could you please elaborate on your edit summary ("Unsupported unicode")? Thanks! — David Levy 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Lerdthenerd (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
heres a cookie, I was reading through you're talk page and was upset to find you might lose you're adminship for blocking Arcayne, I dont want to see you lose the mop infact i agree with block i've just arrived back from haitus and i have a message on my talk page from Arcayne, saying i'm a fannnish zealot i find that very rude.-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 08:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Edokter,
I am writing to inform you to explain your wish on my page being deleted. I would like to ask you that the Trickster is a crucial part of recent Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures. The Trickster is quite essential and I would like The Trickster's page not to be deleted. He is just like the Slitheen, Daleks, Cybermen et al. I implore you please, please, please, please, please restore the page, please.
Yours sincerely, Ratzo-- Ratzo ( talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Irrel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This guideline specifically states "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources", and "This guideline does not apply to inline citations, which appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." David Underdown ( talk) 12:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, can you please take a look at this so called article. I think it needs to be speedied but i cant think of the right criteria. Its in good faith but i dont think it belongs in the pedia. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ( talk) 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Edokter! I know you know the navboxes fairly well and was hoping you could help me. I had posted a question at Template talk:Navbox with collapsible groups#Expand more than one section and was hoping for some input. Rgrds. -- Tombstone ( talk) 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. Just fyi, Mzajac accidentally deleted some of my original message, which I've now replaced (at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Minimums). Hopefully it makes more sense intact ;) -- Quiddity ( talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
2nd fyi: I created User:Edokter/fonttest/screenshots in your userspace, hope that's ok (Feel free to move it into my userspace if you prefer). I wasn't sure whether or where to link to it from User:Edokter/fonttest; please do, if you think it is useful. I also mentioned it in two threads at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Thanks again :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 04:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I missed your reply before at the Village Pump -- just replied there, rather late. Interested in your thoughts. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_47#New_templates_for_user_page_.22trophy_cases.22 - Pete ( talk) 07:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This was asked and answered before . In that case about Geo blocking [1]. but the principle still applies here . The fact you or a large number of people can't see them doesn't make them non acceptable . Garda40 ( talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Edokter. I noticed that you deleted the redirect at Day of the Clown. I've also seen other redirects that you've deleted in the past, things like Aliens of London (Doctor Who). I don't think that deletion of these redirects is necessary or useful. Remember, redirects are cheap, and if a page has existed at a given title for any length of time, it's always possible that someone somewhere out there on the web has linked to the page at its old name. Furthermore, the naming guideline at WP:TV-NC recommends that redirects be created for TV episodes, so redirects like Aliens of London (Doctor Who) are actually preferred. (That recommendation came about as a compromise with editors who wanted all TV episode articles to carry disambiguation, whether they needed it or not.)
If a redirect comes from page move vandalism, or is an implausible misspelling, then of course it's fine to delete it. But it's conceivable that someone looking for the most recent SJA serial might type in Day of the Clown, and they should be able to be taken straight to the article they want. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just going by the recommendations at WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic. It doesn't say anything about the term being "inseparable from the subject" — it just says that if there is a primary topic (which there is, in this case), that should be listed first, separated from the other entries. It's not that I think that the character Jack Harkness deserves special emphasis — it's just that among those meanings for "Jack Harkness", the character is the primary topic.
Is there a reason why you think that the guideline for linking to a primary topic shouldn't apply in this case? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Mark Verheiden is a Writer and he is the Co-Executive producer for BSG. He CONFIRMED that the episode titles are CORRECT. Stop removing them, and more importantly stop threatening me with no basis. 24.111.234.4 ( talk) 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you keep deleting these anonymous additions of the continued 4th season episode list. I side with you that who whoever is doing it complety fails to add a proper reference, so therefore you might want to consider asking for semi page protection. It will keep anons and newly created named accounts from editing the page. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and fill out a request. Just put on there like "Request page protection for a few days because of edit waring." You guys are violating the 3RR revertion policy - a potentially banable offense and if you keep it up you could both get banned and the anon could have the last laugh. Just a suggestion. Cyberia23 ( talk) 16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The page clearly states the title.... and that being "Ask Ausiello BLOG". Sorry.
24.111.234.4 (
talk) 00:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
With respect, you're wrong. Please read User_talk:Ckatz#Companion_.28Doctor_Who.29_fair_use_montage. Thank you. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(←) Our core policies actually allow fair use images; it is the extent of that which is left open to the community. You are set on your interpretation of that policy, and leave no room for other interpretations, and that comes off as a little paranoid. It is true I'd like to see a more liberal stance regarding fair use, and I am well entitled to that opinion. No RfC will change that. And there will always be "special cases", now and in the future; it is actually the driving force of Wikipedia in defining such policies. Trying to kill these discussions as you do is not a healthy way to participate in that process. Painting doom-scenarios is also of little use; whatever the consequences, they are a result of these discussions. — Edokter • Talk • 00:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
How you been? I'm fine. Since I copied my sig code from you, you may want to check this out: s:User_talk:Rlevse#issues_with_your_sig — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
In User talk:Kww#Montage images as navigational elements, Hammersoft claims that he knows your opinion on Image:CheetahGirlsDiscography.jpg, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 October_29#Image:CheetahGirlsDiscography.jpg.E2.80.8E. Please let me know if he represented your views accurately.— Kww( talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it not ok to use humanoid as a descriptive race term? I mean she clearly is "humanoid". -- Lemming64 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for jumping in and offering your opinion and guidance. SpikeJones ( talk) 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my talkpage. I'm new here and still have to find out how everything works. K9876.3467 ( talk) 20:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Redarding this comment:
The bug described in the linked discussion is caused by a hard-coded line-height of 9pt in the Clubs section
The editprotected request is regarding template:infobox Football biography 2, which doesn't have any such hard-coding. Can you see if I've overlooked something? if not, fancy reconsidering? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, in terms of this; how does it look now? I think it should be fixed. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Edokter,
No one has commented on this discussion for five days now. Would you mind performing the talk page move, deletion, recreation, and merge as you suggested? I would, but I don't have the capability to do so because I'm not an administrator.
Thanks,
Neelix ( talk) 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like somebody screwed up a page move on the Winnie the Pooh page. Can you check the discussion on Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh#Talk:Winnie the Pooh redirects here... and see what needs to happen to line stuff up correctly again? Yeah, I know - it's minor, but somebody pointed it out. SpikeJones ( talk) 14:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
This change has the rationale "that causes quite excessive spacing". The spacing in question is the default styling used by {{ infobox}}, so I don't think that the consensus is that it's excessive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
For whats its worth I also fully support the restoration of the link but I'm staying away from the project. There was never a clear consensus and actually more people disapproved of its removal than approved. The Bald One White cat 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the wrong referencing, I am new to wikipedia editing and still learning how to contribute correctly. Alexey Morgunov ( talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi - to save us from an edit war which I'm sure neither of us wants to get into, I've raised the Rosita issue on the Doctor Who Project page directing editors to " The Next Doctor" talk page and asking them to read and offer their thoughts. I know I've written there that Wikipedia doesn't work on consensus, but I'm not arrogant enough to assume that consensus isn't important in helping to resolve issues so if the other editors side with you and provide sources I will gladly back down. Thanks. Wolf of Fenric ( talk) 02:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I see you reverted my addition of NOINDEX... I think having all the ANI pages not indexed by external search sites is an outstanding idea... so adding NOINDEX to the template itself is a convenient way to achieve that. Perhaps you don't agree? let's talk about it at Template_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard_navbox_all#NOINDEX. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding adding Majenta Pryce to the Tenth Doctor page, it's fair enough if we don't do them, but in that case we need to go and remove them from all the Doctors pages, especially the 8th who has a list as long as my arm. Clockwork Apricot ( talk) 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I created an RfC to try to deal with that bit about the IDW series' relevancy, to try to drive the discussion out of the edit history. TheGreenFaerae ( talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edit appears to have broken the template. Previously the |image_size=
parameter would work regardless of whether "px
" was used or not; now it only seems to work if "px
" is specified, else the image will be displayed at it's full size.
PC78 (
talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
|image_size=
parameter does not include the "px", but this may be a largely hypothetical concern which in any case is down to an incorrect usage of the parameter. Sorry, my stress levels are running a little high at the moment.
PC78 (
talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Santa's Little Helper.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for helping with this. User:SebastianHelm has started the work. Check his contribs to see what he's up to and jump right in! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Edokter/Archive 3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to the TFD request I posted on ANI. AndrewRT( Talk) 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Edokter. I am puzzled by your closing rationale at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 28#Template:Country data Earth. It seems fairly clear to me that there was consensus to delete Template:Country data Earth, but to keep Template:Country data World. Why did you conclude that both should be kept? Thanks — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Given that you have both the necessary access level and what appears to be a fairly high level of knowledge of conditional wikimedia markup (as seen in your recent "'Optionalizing' parameters" edit to Template:Infobox Television episode), do you think you could implement the change requested in Template talk:Infobox Television episode#Prev.2FNext_and_crossover.2Fpilot_episodes? Besides my lack of admin access to change the template, I also lack the necessary in-depth knowledge of wikimedia conditionals.
Thanks. John Darrow ( talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey,
Could you have a look at the issue described here and see if it's something which could be fixed centrally in the {[tl|navbox}} template logic? Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
...for that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove my link to the Ralph Eggleston interview on his art direction for Wall-E? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is not true. I listed it on Wikipedia as an external link before someone shoplifted my intellectual property and added it to the body of the Wikipedia page -- without my permission which is what is called for by my web page. Because it's on the web doesn't mean it's for free use by anyone. I've worked very closely with Pixar on this piece for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't address my point. I put my link on first. Whoever changed it didn't contact me to ask for permission to remove my link because they were copying information from my writing. From my web page: NOTICE REGARDING TEXT AND IMAGE COPYRIGHTS: This article and interviews are owned by © Ron Barbagallo. All Rights Reserved. You may not quote or copy from this article without written permission. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Can you please contact me at (email redacted) so we can discuss this. Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So why does someone making a patchwork quilt out of my writing justify my link being removed entirely? I'd like to be able to tell Pixar the reason why imdb gets a link and we didn't. Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not the same thing and you know it. Can you tell me which Wikipedia person took the External Link out so I may contact them? Or, can you please re-post my link back in External Links. It's unbelievably rude to reduce Ralph's involvement and Pixar's commitment to this piece because someone decided to steal from my writing. - Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not the same because it's hidden in what graphic designers call "Mice Type." The Big Cartoon Database contacted me this week to get permission to post and to extrapolate from my text -- with my permission. Please let me [know] which Wikipedia person took the External Link out so I may contact them or, please can you re-post my link back in External Links. I find what you've done to my work offensive. - Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not the size of the font... "mice type" is a place where things get hidden or buried. It's not a reference to type size only. And, Ralph and I wouldn't have devoted so much time to doing this article -- if there was not a substantial amount of important information for the public. I have links like this one all over Wikipedia for my other works. People in countries all over the world put links to my pages on the External Links section (not in the reference section). This is the only time anyone has done this. Please post someone on the Talk page. I don't know how to do that. - Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Not from my perspective, this is as it is tragically all too often on Wikipedia, one person's personal perspective. I'd also be careful at suggesting conflicts of interest particularly when my site generates no income, and Ralph Eggleston and I received no income to create the piece. I'll simply relay what you've said to my colleagues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Well that was a thankless task then. Look at the older version of The Seeds of Doom and tell me it's not better. Forget it.-- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion about the background color at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). You might want to state your case there. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe I've found a bug of some sort in {{ Navbox with collapsible groups}}. The 'state' parameter doesn't seem to do what one would expect when set to 'autocollapse'. I initially discovered this when I used it in {{ IRC footer}} but I've been seeing the same problem in other templates that make use of {{ Navbox with collapsible groups}} too. Tothwolf ( talk) 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not analysis to say that we've only seen 7 Cylons so far. Maybe it's an issue with your English. Analyzing a show means taking something that wasn't clear, and trying to figure out how it works. Saying we've only seen 7 Cylons so far is just stating a fact that's plainly said in the show. And it's important context for casual viewers who might not know or remember that. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 23:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The past tense is appropriate for their only knowing about 7 models. It's not present knowledge. It was present knowledge before he told them about the the 8th model. But now that he's told them about the 8th model, their only knowing about 7 models is in the past. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we should keep the top ten critics' lists. You said it appeared in the reviews section but it didn't. The information can give more detailed looks for viewers as it appears in The Incredibles and Ratatouille pages. Mr Vinx ( talk) 10:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you made some edits to the {{ Navbox}} about a week ago, could you revert back to the previous version as it messes up {{ Navbox with columns}} (where the columns becomes padded inwards as can be seen in the docs and on the talk section for Navbox i created) — CHAN DLER #10 — 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Does undoing this edit have any effect on the proliferation of articles in Category:Tnavbar templates using obscure parameters? I noticed this new (hidden) category, which was created by Happy-melon this morning, popping up on some pages I was working on, and I note that the category now contains over 13,000 articles, expanding at the rate of several thousand per hour. Over 1,000 articles were added to it just since I started typing this message. - Dewelar ( talk) 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this [2] [3] something you'd be able help with or is this something that should go straight to DRV etc? I feel like he has wasted a bunch of my time playing games which makes me rather unhappy. I just want to get back to working on these templates and the articles that use them. Tothwolf ( talk) 02:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not making my objectives clearer but I tried to bring some sense into the Caprica mess.
Thanks for your contributions afterwards. Regards, Str1977 (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for considering my request. I noticed that you removed the {{
editprotected}}
} and marked the request "not done". Does this mean that this is the end of the process.
If this is true is there anywhere I can go to have the outcome reviewed. It is not a trivial request. The template {{
infobox mountain}} is in need of a cleanup and it is used in over 6,000 pages. It too uses a photo and a map. If I have no recourse then, in your opinion, would a second meta-template named something like {{
infobox2}}
be unacceptable.
I understand that the image field is open. But to hang two images and possible captions on it would in my opinion be a kludge. Wiki templates are is full of kludges mostly do to resistance to change. I seems sometimes that everyone is off doing there own thing with more or less success. I was hoping that the appearance of meta-templates would help clean things up a little. I hope that this issue can be resolved. -- droll [chat] 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting out the two tables; nice to see Richard Hurndall promoted to top of the 'others' list! I am an original 23rd November 1963 fan and father of a keen son-DW fan!
Nitramrekcap ( talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
-- 78.152.224.33 ( talk) 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding RPrev and RNext to Template:Infobox Television episode. Sometimes the simplest solutions really are the best ones. John Darrow ( talk) 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[temporary talkback fork removed by author]
You are being discussed here. I suggested he take it to WP:3RR. I hate it when the discussee is not notified. FYI. -- 64.85.222.144 ( talk) 14:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The Template Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your code optimization and readability of the new code for the {{ talkback}} template. :D Nn123645 ( talk) 20:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC) |
Given how much stuff has been put into the individual episodes, are you worried that redirect nuts like TTN would come in and do it, like what has happened with Entourage and That 70s Show? -- Eaglestorm ( talk) 05:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand if you may feel that Heroes Wiki isn't a reliable source, but in case you didn't notice, one of the additions I made was the upcoming episode I Am Sylar dated to air on April 20. When I originally created that page I sourced Heroes Wiki. Now that NBC has confirmed it through one of the more popular sources of reference used by this site, all of a sudden it becomes acceptible even though the information was available for a longer period of time on a site that's not used because it's a so-called unreliable source. In light of these recent events, you might want to cut Heroes Wiki a little slack and try using their information. If they were right about this one, who knows what else they're right about. SnakeChess511:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you happen to know if and how a cropped screenshot of http://www.scifi.com/caprica/ - showing the Caprica logo and principals - can be used?
Never done it before and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free gets confusing. It's promotional material, but in the form of a cropped screenshot of a (commercial) webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 ( talk) 11:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been going back and forth on the Cars (film) page with Michael Shumacher. The consensus has been to limit THAT page to the primary characters, and then list the other supporting folk on the List of Cars characters page. I believe (without looking, memory failing) that Shumacher made the cut on that page during the recent pruning. If he's not on the List Of... page, then feel free to add him there, but adding him on the primary page seems overkill at this time. Cheers! SpikeJones ( talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir would you kindly look at the talk page for the article before deleting part of the outside references article again, thank you.-- Collinsas ( talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
\You need to stop, and now. If you keep edit-warring, i will seek to have you blocked. Use the article discussion page and build a consensus. Please consider this your last warning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously Edokter, there is absolutely no method in the world of reasoning with Arcayne that doesn't involve giving him exactly what he wants. Everyone else is wrong, he is right, and his edit summaries are usually either tagged "wrong" or "sigh", which is extremely condescending. Take a look at the guy's 30 month-long history of abusing others and you'll see it for yourself. Oh, and before I get accused of "wikihounding" (which I probably will because that too is his MO) I came here to leave my comments of support for you before I even saw that he'd already commented in his typical fashion. Erikeltic ( talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Edokter, I've sent you an email regarding the Ireland Collaboration. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please see the discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials; it's actually a reasonable source, honest! Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 11:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 14:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious why you removed the transcluding of the BSG episode lists I made for seasons 1 and 2, why is it "not safe practice" to do so, when I have noticed that TV shows like LOST and Stargate SG-1 do so with their list. Thanks -- Mollsmolyneux ( talk) 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Edokter. I see that you deleted the redirect Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special, using the summary "(R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)". That doesn't seem appropriate to me; the redirect was created in July 2008, and most recently restored by Dragons flight in December 2008, with the justification "(redirects are cheap and this name was used internally.)" I agree with that judgment; if nothing else, it's relevant because there was an AfD under that name.
I know that you tend to see redirects as annoying and untidy, but they really are harmless. It might be useful to review the arguments at WP:RFD#HARMFUL and the following sections of that page. WP:RFD#KEEP specifically says not to delete a redirect if "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect." The AfD is an example of that very sort of internal link. I've recreated the redirect. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
More on redirect deletion mania: according to Wikipedia:Most missed articles there were nearly a thousand searches a day for 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who) in 2008. Just because you don't think a redirect is useful, that doesn't mean that it isn't. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Love the new picture on " Planet of the Dead" - well done! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much! May I also suggest that you unblock Man of wealth and taste, who is/was in exactly the same position as myself? Ta. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 15:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I'd have taken it off quite that quickly, given that it was a dynamic IP address! Still, as long as someone's keeping an eye on it, hopefully I don't suppose it matters. Black Kite 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you made a mistake in closing this as speedy delete per A3. A3 does not cover articles which have valid content, even if that content is speculation. I agree that it should be deleted but I think we should use the proper venues and not use speedy criteria that do not fit. Regards So Why 12:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for helping me out with Persondata !
I can see them now.
Thank you.
Tovojolo ( talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, as a member of the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, I was wondering are you and your fellow moderators going to be making a statement on the future actions as a result of the statement process? There are many editors waiting and are a bit confused by the lack of action and lack of decision making. A statement of any future action would be greatly appreciated. Regards MITH 15:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there not a way to request a bot to replace The Eclipse with The Eclipse (Heroes)? Might be best to do it now while the number of links for the Tribeca film remains small. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 21:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comes from the BFI National film theatre programme. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a138/hingethunder/torchwood-1.jpg Clockwork Apricot ( talk) 07:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, public-domain images such as File:USS ALAMO - lsd33 3.jpg do need source information, so that we can verify the claim of public-domain status. -- Carnildo ( talk) 22:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Edokter,
I sent you an e-mail on April 15. Did you receive it? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it best if another mediator is contacted, and resolution of the content issues pursued. I do not believe that the ANI discussion is going to advance any further and it may be best to step back from the article until some resolution is achieved. I am copying this message to the other two article contributors who posted to ANI. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In your last edit, you changed the name of a parameter from "navbar" to "Navbar". This broke a lot of templates. Please revert that part of your edit asap. Thanks. — Ms2ger ( talk) 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
do you really think that's too heavy on the preprocessor? I designed it to be nested (so it only has to hit conditionals for the parameters provided), so I'm having a hard time seeing at as being all that expensive. or am I misunderstanding something? -- Ludwigs2 14:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Edokter ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Completely unjustified and out-of-policy block that prevents nothing; other party is a totally non-communicative vandal that kept inserting nonsense. I do NOT report to 3RR in order to get blocked. Black Kite should unblock immediately. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Looking at the diffs provided, this block is fully justified and within policy as a clear cut 3RR violation. The editor who you reverted was neither inserting nonsense nor vandalism, and your 5 reverts do not meet any of the exceptions. - auburnpilot's sock 18:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Edokter ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
For crying out loud... The user was reverted by multiple editors and was being disruptive; Edit warring without communicating is equal to vandalism. And the block still does not prevent anything. Perhaps you should both brush up on blocking policy. — Edokter • Talk • 18:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
AuburnPiIot is right. WP:3RR exempts only "obvious" vandalism (bold in original), defined as "edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism". This does not apply to the edits you were reverting. Sandstein 20:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Edokter ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The block is STILL wrong for being made 6 HOURS after the events. — Edokter • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC+2)
Decline reason:
This has been declined twice now by two different admins. I don't think continuing to make unblock requests will help your case in any way. Usually it leads to revocation of talk page editing instead. Regards So Why 21:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
As soon as the block expires, I will be file an ArbCom case agains Black Kite, Sandstein, AuburnPiIot and SoWhy. This is purely a punitive block; it proevents nothing. Many admins have been admonished for making such a block. I will not accept this block, as it is rotten to the core, and I am not one to take lightly to that. — Edokter • Talk • 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Really? Edokter, I know how frustrating it is to be blocked for a 3RR violation after filing the report (that is the exact situation that led to my 3RR block back in '06), but threatening to go to ArbCom over the block really is beneath you. If you think there's a case, by all means, but I'd encourage you to take a few steps away from the keyboard before doing it. - auburnpilot's sock 21:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Coming in a bit late here, I have to agree with those who are troubled by this punitive block. Edokter has raised valid points. The other user was clearly engaging in WP:Disruptive editing: repeatedly adding (using various wordings) the same unsourced statement, completely ignoring the opposing consensus shown by the reverts of the same change in March and April, and the relevant messages and warnings from other editors on their talk page. In fact, a look at the user's contribution history gives no indication that the user has ever bothered to interact with any other editors at all - not one change to any Talk: or User Talk: namespace pages, or to any WP: page other than WP:Introduction. Further, while WP:Vandalism may not explicitly say so, a quick search of the various namespaces for "repeated insertion of unsourced" shows that such behavior _is_ generally considered vandalism. As such, IMO Edokter would have been well within his rights (as an admin) to block the other user directly for the disruptive editing (perhaps that would have finally gotten the user to read and respond to the many issues raised on their talk page!) But instead he simply tried to de-vandalize the article in question - and was blocked for it. John Darrow ( talk) 19:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)