Jump to content

User talk:Edokter/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

ok

Fair enough. I looked back on it and thought it was a little speculative. However it is equally as speculative to say that all of volume 5 will contain 18-20 episodes and that's why (for the second time) I changed it to list that the amount of episodes in Redemption is TBA. SnakeChess5 04:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I left the TBA in. — Edokter • Talk • 11:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Series/Season Distinction between English English and American English

I just saw your brief comments over on talk:Doctor Who (series 1), and I must say--I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the change. When did the British switch from using season to series? Season doesn't make the most sense to me, but series implies an entirely different show.

Dahile00 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the terms used to be used more or less interchangeably in UK television. "Season" is used consistently in the US, where until fairly recently each year's new run of episodes almost always began airing in the autumn (which was then referred to as "the new television season"). British television has generally followed a less regular pattern, with shorter runs of episodes than US television. A new run of episodes might air several years after the previous one, in which case the "new series" terminology makes sense. However, the classic series of Doctor Who usually aired fairly regularly every autumn or winter, so speaking of the "new season" seems to fit.
But that's conjecture on my part. What I do know is that when Jean-Marc Lofficier published The Doctor Who Programme Guide in 1981, he listed each year of the programme as a "season", and that usage has continued for classic Doctor Who to this day. Today, the BBC uses "Season One" to refer to the 1963–64 run of episodes, and "Series One" to refer to the 2005 run. (See here and here.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration

I wanted to make you aware that ArbCom has formally thanked you for your time and efforts with the Ireland collaboration project: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ireland collaboration. I also wanted to extend my personal thanks to all three of you for the hard work you put into it. If at some point I could be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me via my talk page or email. Thank you again and best wishes! --Vassyana (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, changing Portal:Box-footer to a redirect has introduced a minor issue in pages that were already following a redirect through Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-footer. See Portal:Biology or Portal:Computer science for examples. --Shunpiker (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have undone this change, until it can be fixed without simultaneously disrupting multiple portal pages. Cirt (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The proper action would be to fix the redirect(s). Now we end up with the same mess we were in before, namely the interwiki bots polluting the template on a regular basis that show up on every portal page (but which remains largely invisible due to the immediate reverts). — Edokter • Talk • 11:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I responded too soon... I thought you moved Box-header back. Still, fixing a redirect is trivial. — Edokter • Talk • 11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Will you fix the redirects then? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have alrerady done so. Did I miss any? — Edokter • Talk • 21:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle star Galactica

It appears you are a regular user, so I will not waste time templating you. However, your edits at battlestar galactica have been brough to the attention of editors at WP:EAR. Upon review your edits appear to be a slowmotion edit war. Please cease this behaviour. The editor bringing this up has been advised to file a complaint at WP:ANI. Happy editingDrew Smith What I've done 06:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A Streetcar Named Marge

I have no idea where this is coming from, but I would like to point out that page 93 of the cited source says "episode 8F18". Yes, it does not specifically say "production code". However, if one turns to page 13 of the book, it contains a key to the later guide pages. That portion clearly says that "8F18" indicates the production number (or code). I can scan it in if you don't believe me. Also, in the DVD commentaries, they often include the production code in their intro to the episode. -- Scorpion0422 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How do I get to "the book"? The source ([2]) takes me to the episode page with a short summary and the code, nothing else. As what promted this, you need to ask Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs · logs), who placed the fact tag, and pd_THOR (talk · contribs · logs), who kept removing the production code from 33 (Battlestar Galactica), to which I subsequently opened an RFC. — Edokter • Talk • 22:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The current source is The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to our Favorite Family. I just checked it and it confirms everything. If you don't like that a book is used as the source, then I suggest that you try to change our sourcing policy. -- Scorpion0422 01:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Then I mixed up the refs. — Edokter • Talk • 13:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite news and accessdate

Actually, {{cite news}} does accept accessdate. I don't think there's any display difference between using that and accessdaymonth/ accessyear; at one point they were linked, but linking of dates in references has been deprecated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's weird. Then why don't the accessdates show up in the refs? — Edokter • Talk • 21:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
They do for me! But then, I've got date preferences turned off, so I see articles the way that non-logged-in editors do. Perhaps date prefs are acting up? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Possibly. Anyway, both formats are valid for the template. — Edokter • Talk • 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Name pages

Hi, thanks for tidying up Jenny (given name). However, please note that name pages are not disambiguation pages, see MOS:DABSUR; so, there's no need to apply MOS:DAB and remove multiple links per line.

You'd be very welcome to join WP:Wikiproject Anthroponymy if you have the time and interest to clean up and improve more of these pages! - Fayenatic (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I was just a passer-by, as anthroponymy is not my forté. Thanks for the invitation though. — Edokter • Talk • 22:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jig bot

Dear Edokter, I am jigesh, sysop from ml.wiki. i had seen that you had blocked user:jigbot. Actualy i have given bot request in my ml.wiki for this username. This user name owns to me. I hope you will be removing the block for this user. I will be using this bot interwiki links, english wiki. Please consider this as request.

thanking you,

Jigesh --Jigesh (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jigesh. You should probably request approval on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, but I am not sure if interwiki bots need approval. I am seeking advice, please stand by. — Edokter • Talk • 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering about that... — Edokter • Talk • 22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDuncTalk 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Gone Too Far

04:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC) SnakeChess5 Okay look, I understand that we must have reliable sources for things to be posted on Wikipedia so that more accurate info is provided, but look, it's all over the internet that NBC has made announcements, so why don't you start searching and maybe you'll find that what has been posted is right. Heroes season 4 - first three episode titles have been released, along with air dates, so getting rid of a lot of that info was uncalled for as far as I'm concerned, but I'll let you do some digging and see if you come to the same conclusions. But this is not the first time you've made this mistake. All through Fugitives new episode titles and such were being released along with other related info on some sites that you deemed as unreliable. The info they released was there long before the info showed up on sites you deemed reliable, and it was accurate in every aspect it was related to. Therefore, it just goes to show that not all reliable info in any given area has to come from one particular site or page, and that the pages it comes from do not have to be deemed reliable according to someone with a guru-mentality.

That is not my call; Wikipedia policy is very strict about what we can include, and what sources we can use. Further more, the burden of providing sources lay with the editor that wants to include this information; in this case you. I'm sure someone , be it you, me or someone slse, will find and provide the appropriate sources. Only then can the information be included. If you want someone to check out the sources for you, post on the article's talk page; you will always find someone that is willing to help out. — Edokter • Talk • 11:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Edokter. You have new messages at Template_talk:Navbar.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- WOSlinker (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Already replied there. — Edokter • Talk • 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppet question

I am not entirely sure but I suspect that the recruiting of other editors by Vegavairbob‎ in relation to the requested move of Straight-four engine being discussed at Talk:Straight-four engine which looks like meatpuppetry to me but I could do with an admin's view and suggestion on what to do. His user talk posts specifically ask for support and opposed to just notifying people that the topic might be of interest to them. Can you assist? ww2censor (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, meatpupptry is not my speciality. At first glance, I see no apparent disruption. However, you can ask more advice on WP:AN. — Edokter • Talk • 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ww2censor (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Assist in a dispute?

I respect your opinion and knowledge of all things wikipedia greatly, so I was wondering if you would assist in a dispute over an article? It is to do with the Jägermeister page and the suggestion of a similarity between their corporate logo and a Nazi symbol. This discussion can be found here: Talk:Jägermeister/Archives/2014#31_SS_resemblance. Thank you magnius (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Greetings, why did you undo the "pages" to "transclusions" edit on Template:High-risk with the edit summary "not correct"? What is not correct about the verbage, "transclusions"? Why do you contradict yourself in your edit summaries on Template:Navbar/doc and first say emphatically "it's not 3,200,000 *PAGES*" then later say, "and yes, it is number of pages"? Perhaps editor User:WOSlinker deserves some recognition for your previous and apparently erroneous revert of his/her edit, no? Melanotan (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a small discussion on Template talk:Navbar clarifying the transclusion count, establishing that multiple transclusions on one page count single, so I was indeed wrong. Also, "This template is shown used on xxx transclusions" was simply bad English. That's why I reverted it. — Edokter • Talk • 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Sorry, where does/did the word "shown" appear? I want to understand you here, you do have a level of understanding of the English language to know what the word "transclusion" refers to, yes? Melanotan (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Transclusion is the technical term that refers to a template being called and displayed on a page. As such, it is "being transcluded", not "used on a transclusion", which is symantically incorrect. — Edokter • Talk • 16:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong again. One can equally use the word, "transclusion" as a noun. Even our own transclusion article explains it thusly, "Rather than copying the included data and storing it in two places, a transclusion embodies modular design, by allowing it [the included data] to be stored only once (and perhaps corrected and updated if the link type supported that) and viewed in different contexts." (see this as well). One can swap out the word "transclusion" for "inclusion" and arrive at "an inclusion", it works the same. Rather than going around reverting others first and asking questions (and being shown you're wrong repeatedly) try using a talk page first to avoid this sort of talk (User:WOSlinker was right to make this request). You reverted 3 editors (one multiple times) about this count thing before you finally admitted your error. Melanotan (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, it is just bad English. Templates are not "used on a transclusion"; they are used on a page. The noun as used above is methodical in context as it is derived from the verb; you cannot interchange them. I know my English too. The point is moot anyway, as we have established that transclusion count equals the number of pages the template is transcluded on, so there is nothing wrong with the current wording. I have no desire to get into a symantics discussion. If you feel so strong about it, take it to the template's talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bill

Given your experience with articles on TV shows, I wondered if you could take a look at this discussion Talk:The Bill/Archives/2010/July#Merge Proposal. I don't know how to proceed this, there is no consensus for the merge, but those arguing against it don't seem to be interested in discussing the issues the articles have. Any advice would be appreciated. --Deadly∀ssassin 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many episode articles there are, but a good middle way is to integrate the general storylines in List of The Bill episodes and leave the notable episodes on their own article. A good example would be List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes. I noticed the list articles are divided into subpages, which is not agreeable with WP:NAMING#Subpages; a better way would be to devide the pages for each serial, such as The Bill (series 1). Hope this helps. — Edokter • Talk • 22:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Not enough probably. There's maybe 10 articles and 100s of episodes. I think the text would be drowned out. --Deadly∀ssassin 04:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 16 2009 to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/policy/manual

Argh, changed mine based on TT's comments at AN3. Hold on... William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that you removed the caption and image links from the Adam (Torchwood) page. Your comment was: Defenitely not a key element of the plot

In haste, I undid your edit. However, after thinking it over, I'm would like to hear your side. Could clarify your comment? What makes a key element of the plot?

In the image, Gwen is essentially under complete control of Adam. Gwen is the only person we see in the episode having never been under Adam's control. I feel that the image of Adam, with the look he has, looking at Gwen brings back the entire plot.

I will admit that the caption was not great and I tried to improve it. --Squibman (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor 2009-10 Specials Template

I feel that your reasoning to remove "See also: The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith" from the template is unjustified. You stated "Not a Doctor Who special" as your edit description. Whilst this description is accurate, surely you would then also need to remove the animated serial from the list as well as all the 'mini-episodes' from all previous series' templates. Surely the prefix of 'See also' determines that it is related to, but not necessarily a part of, the 'specials'. David Tennant is said to have a main role in the episode and it is more or less being promoted as a 'bonus' Doctor Who episode. If you were to suggest that perhaps the entry in the template should wait until there is a specific page made for the Sarah-Jane episode in question, then I would except that reasoning, otherwise I see no reason why it can't be included. Darkglasses (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a pega need to exist before it can be linked to in a navbox. But apart form that, the navbox is ment to interlink this season's Doctor Who episodes, and the Sarah Jane episode is simply not a part of Doctor Who. If we start to include those, the navboxes would explode with inter-series link for every connection that can be imagined. So, we need to rrestrain ourself and only link the relevant pages. This template should only link to episodes and specials that are actually part of this season's Doctor Who season. — Edokter • Talk • 23:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced you have raised a decent counter argument, however I will let the template stand as it currently is and come back to this issue when the relevant 'Sarah-Jane' story has aired or has at least had a page created for it at the appropriate time Darkglasses (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Claire Bloom

I've started a talk page section at Talk:The End of Time#Claire Bloom. Please enter this discussion, as I'm a bit puzzled by your reasoning on this one. Thanks, U-Mos (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

templature consistency

Given the changes you made to 33 (Battlestar Galactica), were such SOP[?] changes planned to Template:Infobox Television episode and its associated documentation? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just thought it looked better, as it is the common style with Doctor Who episodes, which is where the guests= parameter was born. I don't know if a consensus has been established for the episode infobox, as the parameter is relatively new there. — Edokter • Talk • 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

With no malice aforethought, I changed the guest star formatting after discussing it with some folks IRL and involved in the Stargate WikiProject; the dashes are rather ambiguous and could be interpreted as going either direction for readers whereas the "as" convention makes it clearer who's the actor and who's the fictional character. Thanks. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

BSG talk page

Thanks for posting your note at the BSG talk page. I was in the midst of writing one when something came up off-line, so I appreciate the help. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 17:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. — Edokter • Talk • 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

BSG (2004)

I restored this redirect. I didn't understand why that was deleted. This is the easier way to access the article without having to type its full name.. There is a similar one for the old version of the series. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names

IE test

Can you give your opinion on MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Pre_overflow ?

Jenny (Doctor Who)

Feel free to undo, but please do not attribute things total, total nobs have written to me as you do it. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin, what does that mean? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 09:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
MartinSFSA performed an edit on the article Jenny (Doctor Who). This was subsequently reverted by Edokter. However in the edit summary Edokter also attributed a second edit to Jenny (Doctor Who) to MartinSFSA. MartinSFSA protests this misidentification on Edokter's talk page. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
My bad, won't happen again. Still, no big deal. — Edokter • Talk • 15:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Heroes

Hi. I was curious how to become a member of WikiProject Heroes. SnakeChess5 11:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just add your username to the WikiProject Heroes page. — Edokter • Talk • 13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Images on Heroes Episodes' Pages

I was curious as to why we don't have pictures on all the episode pages for Heroes. There are certainly images out there. Clearly we have some kind of permission for the ones on there already, so why aren't there more? SnakeChess5 15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

All non-free images must pass WP:NFCC seperately. The better part of uploaded episode images are usually deleted because the do not pass one way or another. So we tend to be conservative. — Edokter • Talk • 13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor appearances/recaps

Concerning Template:Dalek Stories - Why don't recaps count? like I said, there's quite a lot of stories in the minor appearances that are just flashbacks - The Wheel in Space (flashback clip briefly at the end) The War Games (one flashback clip briefly) The Mind of Evil (don't actually remember this one, but presumably just a brief flashback) Logopolis (brief flashback) Mawdryn Undead (brief flashback), Human Nature (brief flashback) - the Children in Need special probably has more time with the daleks than all of those put together (certainly has more time than any of them individually). The minor appearances section also has The TVM where they don't actually "appear" on screen. So why those and not the children in need special? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because in those instances, the Daleks have a connection to the main story, and also appear in the main part of the story. Recaps, unlike flashbacks, are strictly speaking not part of the main story. Recaps are just that; recaps of other stories, thus should not be included. — Edokter • Talk • 13:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Heroes Pages Being Edited by People with IP addresses as their usernames

Isn't there a way to make it so that a site can only be edited by people with Wikipedia accounts? How can we get something like that on the various Heroes pages? Too many times have we had to undo edits of vandalism or misguidedness. At least with it limited to user accounts it can be somewhat controlled.  Snake Chess5 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's called semi-protecting, but that is only done when pages suffer regular vandalism or disruptive editing from (IP) users. You can go to the Requests for page pprotection page to request protection. — Edokter • Talk • 14:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Heroes episode list

Hey, saw you just reverted my edits. Before I revert your revert letting you know why and give you some time to respond so no edit war becomes of it.

  • Revert; PC code is standard

I see no reason to include a production code if the airing order is the same. Also many episode lists don't include it for that reason including some where you contributed like List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagined series) episodes.

  • fix table width.

I see no reason to leave empty space on the side. Why not use it? Since most episode list have a lot of info next to each other (horizontal) some more space between them looks cleaner and less piled up to me. Xeworlebi (t•c) 16:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

IE has a problem with 100% table widths, that is why 2% must be left to avoid having a horizontal scrollbar on the bottom. In any case, once being reverted, it is best practice to bring it up on the talk page, and not simply redoing without discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 20:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"The table does not display properly without the Summary field."

I see no problem with the list without the summaries. Because it is an optional parameter it should cause no problem if not utilized, if there is a problem it would be a flaw in the template and should be reported. Xeworlebi (t•c) 15:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I will say it again, there is nothing wrong with the table. As stated on Template:Episode list "When using optional parameters only list the parameters that are being used". So if there is nothing in the summary you leave it out, or hidden so it's easier for others to add. Since you did not respond for a week I assumed you had no reply and no further issue. There is no need for the redundant This episode has not yet aired. Xeworlebi (t•c) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Those summaries will be filled at one point, so there is no point in not having them there. Please don't mistake template documentation for policy. I did not reply because I do not like repeating myself. Bottom line is: when your change is reverted, you need to build consensus. Reinstating your edits without doing so is considered edit warring. — Edokter • Talk • 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/10/14/ask-ausiello-spoilers-on-ncis-house-greys-csi-and-more/: Zachary Quinto's confirmed here that Volume 5 Redemption (and Season 4 in general) is 18 episodes. 4x01 and 4x02 were filmed as two seperate episodes, but were edited together to become one. SilentAssasin23 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates sourced by pronoun based on publication date

When "this month" is stated in a published source, "this month" unequivocally means "the month of publication of this source," except when otherwise indicated, i.e. by an editor's note or other contraindicatory information. 173.12.172.149 (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

TARDIS

Hey, can you do me a favour? TARDIS is currently at FAR and while I intended to fix the objections, personal reasons dictate that I probably won't be able to. Could you possibly help to retain its featuredness? All I think it needs is some source updating, copyediting, and plot summary trimming. Thanks. Sceptre (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input -- having now fully read the EL policy, I can see the requirement to avoid multiple links to the same site on one page -- absolutely fair enough, no argument there.

As for "no new information" -- user ratings & reviews, back cover blurb & high resolution cover image (neither of the latter present on WP due to copyright status of this content) -- this doesn't count as new information? Too Orangey For Crows (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User-submitted reviews and cover images do not add any encyclopdic value to Wikipedia. The TARDIS Library also contains links to purchase items from eBay and such, which makes it a commercial site and introduces a level of conflict of interest. So I'm afraid the site does not fit our inclusion guidelines. — Edokter • Talk • 10:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
OK then, I hope you can clarify three issues for me, as this just seems inconsistent:
1. WP can't link to commercial sites? Then why are there over 4,000 English WP pages linking directly to product pages on Amazon.com? Sites don't get any more commercial than that. ;)
2. Secondly, a correction: the TARDIS Library is not a commercial site, it's a reference site. Google for "Doctor Who books" and it's the #1 result -- above even the BBC site and WP itself. It is also the most comprehensive list of DW books available online. Just like many other fan-run sci-fi sites, eBay/Amazon links are there to cover hosting costs and are not the primary purpose of the site.
3. Finally, "User reviews don't add value"? Then why are there hundreds of user review links all over WP's Doctor Who pages? Look at the Frontier in Space page we've both been editing, for example. There's a separate External Links section just for user reviews -- and every DW episode page has the same. Personally I do agree with this -- particularly for a cult show, fandom opinion is a vital component to help put each episode in context. Yes, obviously the reviews themselves aren't encyclopedic content, but that's why they're an EL and not integrated into the article.
No problem with you being strict about the EL policy (that's your prerogative as an editor) but at least apply the policy consistently. Too Orangey For Crows (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Granted, some Doctor Who pages link to user-review sites, but those have an established reputation. And some articles link to Amazon because it provides data like release dates. Other then that, a site containing a list of books or DVDs still doesn't add anything that we already have with our own lists of books/episodes. Perhaps you can bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who and see what the rest have to say. — Edokter • Talk • 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's fair enough -- though you make a couple of remarks that I have to respond to:
-- "a list of books doesn't add anything..." WP's list of Doctor Who books is FAR from complete. Yes, all the main novel ranges are listed, but WP doesn't list every edition (e.g. non-English) of those books, and doesn't include literally hundreds of other "miscellaneous" DW books around the fringes (especially non-fiction) -- and arguably that's fine: WP isn't supposed to be the Library of Congress! That's what the added value of a "book list" is.
-- Also, re: other sites having an "established reputation" -- The TARDIS Library has been online for over 10 years, and as I said, ranks higher than WP when searching for DW books. If that's not an "established reputation" I don't know what is? (How else do you think a site gets to #1 in Google pageranking?) I presume you're just going by the fact that you personally aren't familiar with the site?
Anyway, I won't fight you on the Torchwood books/audios, since I can agree that the difference in content is relatively minor, but I will be on the lookout for other Doctor Who articles which provide an incomplete picture. (And it may not make sense in all cases to add the missing content directly to WP) Too Orangey For Crows (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Heroes Citation

Hi,

I am admittedly new to Wikipedia and was trying to include a citation for some information without reference. You changed my reference with a comment saying it was a bad reference. I have two questions: 1) How can the reference be better? I cited the NBC press release and I strongly believe that information should include a citation. 2) How do you leave a comment with a change?

Thanks for talking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FREENGLISH (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. 1) the reference was badly formatted. Please read WP:CITE for instruction on how to user the <ref> tag. Also, it was placed after old information that was already cited. 2) Under the edit window, there is an 'edit summary' field where you can add a short descriotion of your edit. Also, please remember to sign your talk page messages. — Edokter • Talk • 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Template:Heroes Series

I do not think it is too cluttered. It lays it all out very efficiently. It allows for more convenient navigation. Instead of pressing back, or having to continually press next episode, you can simply click on one of the links on the template. Someone can travel from, say, for example, Genesis to Building 26 in a single click. It is far more convenient than before. I think removing this template is a bad idea.  Snake Chess5 01:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put this to the Heroes project. I maintain it is way too cluttered and unnecessary. — Edokter • Talk • 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
You do what you have to do.  Snake Chess5 18:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification

I have nominated List of Heroes episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —  MateyAhoy  19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Removal of production codes

I'm sorry man. I got a little upset with all the craziness that Mateyahoy was stirring up, I didn't realize that Sceptre was going to end up reprimanding him for his adding the List of Heroes episodes page to the FLRC and I got a little carried away. I'll try my best not to act out so boldly based solely on my emotions in the future.  Snake Chess5 18:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Awarding Sceptre

I think Sceptre is deserving of an award for his decisive action in dealing with the problem of Mateyahoy. However, I'm not sure what sort of barnstar should be given to him. What would you suggest?  Snake Chess5 20:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for you information Sceptre hasn't dealt with anything. After your comments I am more committed to make sure verifiable information is not ignored as you have chosen to do —  MateyAhoy  23:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
No matter how right you may be... this encyclopedia is still a colaborative project. Every decision is based on consensus. Going against it is not a good way to becoming a trusted editor. — Edokter • Talk • 00:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to go against it. I am happy to leave you guys to edit the page, I was never really interested in editing it, in the first place. Its just terribly confusing to new readers. If you guys are happy with that, so be it. But thats a poor way to make a good impression on the general readership, especially since it is supposed to be a featured page. —  MateyAhoy  00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Navbox

Hi, you are probably not aware of, but your recent edit on the template caused apparently a problem with the conversion of its code (see for example Neil Blaney), so please could you correct it. Thanks ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It was not my edit to navbox that broke the box. A bot removed a tag from the template on the article. Should be OK now. — Edokter • Talk • 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I checked several articles where the navbox was used for succession boxes and all were broken, so seeing that you had edited the template, I assumed that this edit had caused the problem. Sorry for this and thanks for the fix. Best wishes. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 23:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

In what way is it warranted to have several paragraphs about River Song (i.e. only River Song) at Companion (Doctor Who)? Though she may figure significantly in a hypothetical in-universe off-screen future, she has not had a particularly remarkable presence on screen to be given special treatment more than other companions. Why aren't Jackson Lake, Rosita, Adelaide Brooke, etc, treated in the same manner? Either change back to separate article or merge other low-content companion articles into list article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at the Doctor Who wikiproject is that River Song should redirect to the Companion page. That should have been apparent in the article's history, where the discussion is referred to. — Edokter • Talk • 12:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. A whole section for River Song does still seem out of place in the flow of the 'Companion' article though. The article explains the history, definition and role of DW companions, gives a list of all companions, and then suddenly has a whole section on a single individual who will (probably) be a companion at some point in the future. There also seemed to be some degree of consensus at the project page to redirect to Silence in the Library instead, and I would support that option in place of the current situation (unless/until her character appears further, at which time there should be probably be an article in its own right).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television

Can you please revert your recent change to the television infobox? Forcing "Executive producer(s)" not to wrap onto a new line causes other display problems by crushing all of the data further to the right side of the infobox. As an example, Julia (TV series) has air dates which no longer display on single lines, but breaks across three lines. Dungeons & Dragons (TV series) is another example in which the dates break awkwardly. As well, in that example you can see that the "Production company(s)" parameter is longer than the "Executive producer(s)" parameter causing the (s) to break to a new line. If you were to nowrap that parameter also, then the data would be even further crushed to the right side of the infobox. The Secret Lives of Waldo Kitty is another example of a long parameter with a lonely (s). I suggest only putting the nowrap around the word that has the (s) at the end. Like this: 

| label8      = Creative <span style="white-space:nowrap">director(s)</span>
| label24     = Executive <span style="white-space:nowrap">producer(s)</span>
| label31     = Production <span style="white-space:nowrap">company(s)</span>

That way those parameters can still break onto new lines if they need to, but the (s) wont be awkwardly by itself. Sarilox (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Edokter • Talk • 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. It looks much better now. Thank you! Sarilox (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Heroes production crew up for deletion

How's it going Edokter. Listen, I recently discovered that Ophois recommended the List of Heroes production crew article for deletion due to the fact that its information is just a rehashing of information detailed on both Heroes (TV series) and List of Heroes episodes. When I took a close look at it and I agreed with his recommendation, however there were a few details that were not listed on either of those pages, so I integrated them into Heroes (TV series). Now that there is no more need to keep this page, may I ask that you delete it now, because I really don't see any point in keeping it for another seven days.  Snake Chess5 14:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the page has no use, but it does not fall under any speedy criteria. We'll have to wait for 5 days, then any admin will come along and delete it. — Edokter • Talk • 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Life on Mars

Thanks for the tip. I had clicked the link in an earlier diff, and it went to Life on Mars instead, but it was obviously (now) because wikilinks in diffs are converted to full links.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The End of time

Hey i noticed this edit and just thought i inform you that the clip was released by bbc but on a program and is floating around youtube, although i dont think youtube can be cited tho or whether or not the clip should be mentioned. Pro66 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We need not list every possible trailer that is floating around. The ones currently listed convey the message quite well. Youtube can only be cited if the channel is operated by the copyright holder such as the BBC. — Edokter • Talk • 19:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nested 'anchor' tags

What is the reason for the nested anchor tags at List of Doctor Who serials (e.g. {{anchor|Season 1 (1963-64) {{anchor|Season 1 (1963-1964)}}}}). It would seem that the doubling up is in error, and that these instances should take the form {{anchor|Season 1 (1963-64)}}? Unless there is some functionality of the {{anchor}} template that I'm not aware of?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no special reason for nestng them; they can take the form of {{anchor}} {{anchor}}. The reason the are two anchors is to allow linking to the use various formats; the header themselves provide an anchor to "(1963–64)" (with an endash), and the templates provide an anchor to both "(1963-64)" (with a normal dash) and "(1963-1964)" (with the full years). This is simply becasue many epsiode articles have different links. — Edokter • Talk • 15:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words about my work on the article Amy Pond, in your AFD close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Pond. Much appreciated, Cirt (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert-warring IP

Hi! Is there anything that can be done about this so-called person whose entire usage of Wikipedia seems to be reverting our edits without explanation? ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 19:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Try explaining the problem with these edits the to the editor. Failing that, just revert and ignore. — Edokter • Talk • 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth

Well, I tried to help the article but you just reverted anyway. Easily, my opening would have been more helpful for the casual reader who came to the article than the huge amount that faces them. And yes, there is such a thing as {{too long}} - otherwise there wouldn't be a template for it - perhaps you should read it! But carry on - I've got better things to do than argue with Doctor Who fans.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The article would not recieve FA status if it was too long. And clipping the entire lead was simply way too radical. I can't help it if there is so much information. The article is now 106 KB, which is still acceptable. — Edokter • Talk • 00:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
At 8,402 words it's large, but not too long. And personally, I think that some of our episode FAs are too short. Articles like Meet Kevin Johnson are the right way to go, as it treats the subject seriously and examines it as such. Sceptre (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eleventh Doctor. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Cirt (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, why do you insist on providing template warnings to very experienced editors? You did it to me the other day, it's very annoying. A simple request will suffice (and I expect when I get over to Eleventh Doctor and see what the conflict was about, I'll be entirely on Edokter's side anyway). ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 08:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a standard notice regarding edit-warring. I admit it is quite disturbing to see an admin doing this inappropriate behavior, especially with regards to image usage on this project. Cirt (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I might have asked, "Is that a standard notice regarding edit-warring?" I could have asked, "Is it quite disturbing to see an admin doing this inappropriate behavior?" What I actually asked was, Why did you disregard the spirit of WP:DTTR and eschew the option of simply leaving a personalised note? ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 08:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This notice has all the helpful links and says exactly what I wanted to say. Cirt (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edokter, I started a Request for Comment, at Talk:Eleventh Doctor. Hopefully this will help to bring in comments from previously-uninvolved editors, in order to resolve this issue in an amicable fashion. :) Cirt (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much for your image work at File:Amy Pond cropped.jpg. Much appreciated. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) — Edokter • Talk • 18:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Some related videos incoming soon... :P Cirt (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chronology of the Doctor Who universe

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Badly constructed sentence

How is this: The Doctor then hears four knocks, and turns around to find Wilf still stuck in the isolation chamber, with the radiation inside there quickly climbing to lethal levels. Only by entering the second isolation chamber, which is also filled with radiation, can the Doctor free Wilf. The Doctor hesitates, realizing Wilf is the one that will knock four times, but concludes he may have lived too long. He releases Wilfred and enters the second chamber. Moments after, the chamber fills with massive level of radiation and the Doctor suffers from a massive level of radiation poisoning. badly constructed? I think the current style is a run-on. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

...the chamber fills with massive level of radiation and the Doctor suffers from a massive level of radiation poisoning That is bad writing, even if it is gramatically correct. Be short, consise and to the point; avoid words ("massive") that 'thicken' the text, and try to avoid repetition. Plot section only need to summarise the story; not give a word-for-word transcript. — Edokter • Talk • 02:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rassilon

Hi there. Concerning this edit, why do you say that the Doctor identifying the character by the name "Rassilon" cannot be established at this time? --Kwekubo (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read Talk:The End of Time#Rassilon. The Doctor called him Rassilon, but that does not establish his identity. And he is not credited as such. — Edokter • Talk • 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
In the episode, we cannot verify whether Dalton is really Rassilion or not. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
But you seem to be missing the point, the Doctor refers to him explicitly as Rassilon! Whether or not this is the same Rassilon from the classic series, the fact that the Doctor names the President thus is worth noting at Rassilon, as is (presumably) the role played by that character in the story. --Kwekubo (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added this uncertity as note to the above sentence. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you have again removed all mention of The End of Time from the article Rassilon, including a sourced quotation from the episode's writer. Why is this? --Kwekubo (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC Source

Nice job linking to the BBC News Source. Somehow, I had missed that link when I looked over the Gallifrey Base site, which is why I was confused as to why you preferred a blogspot site over Yahoo news. But this is certainly good enough for me. Cheers, NW (Talk) 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Though the Doctor Who News Page is hosted on Blogspot, they are considered reliable; it is run by the same people that ran the news page on the now defunct Gallifrey One site. They have a press pass and only get their news from official sources. So they are a reliable source on everything Doctor Who. — Edokter • Talk • 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Analysis

When writing about works of fiction, such as Doctor Who episodes, the principal frame of reference is always the real world, and the episode is described from in that perspective. As such "analysis" from reliable sources (albeit I haven't added the sources; it was seen in multiple places in passing) is exactly what should be contained in an article; it is not merely a recounting of the in-universe plot and its production.

I have reverted your edit. If you feel this is incorrect can you discuss it on the talk page. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And Sceptre has reverted you. I don't have to tell you the importance of sources; without it, the material is unverifiable. So include them next time, and then preferably in the 'Writing' section. — Edokter • Talk • 22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth Doctor Who

Dear Edokter you changed Thomas Knight Back to Tommy Knight and according to the credits for Doctor Who he is credited a Thomas Knight as seen here on the official Doctor Who website [2] Sfxprefects (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Daleks appearence.jpg

File:Daleks appearence.jpg was tagged for (instant) speedy deletion. I've changed it to the usual image semi-speedy instead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've undone your removal of my disputed NFCC rationale tag from File:Daleks appearence.jpg. You uploaded the file. Leave it to someone else to decide. Was the comment below this entirely wasted on you? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:R2

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 7, technically WP:CSD#R2 leaves out Namespace -> Wikipedia redirects, but I don't think anyone is complaining... Besides, WP:CNR. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:UNINVOLVED

  • Please be mindful of WP:UNINVOLVED.
  • Prior involvement in the dispute [3], [4].
  • You should not have been the admin to close this image discussion [5].

Please take care to not act in an administrative capacity in the future, in disputes to which you are also an active party to the dispute itself. Instead, the admin tasks in the dispute should be performed by an NPOV admin, previously uninvolved in the dispute. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On this basis, Edokter, your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Pond (not to mention your closing remark) was also inappropriate, because you are active in the Doctor Who WikiProject.
I don't mind though, good calls, both of them ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
TT, Involvment in a project does not disqualify admins from taking (obvious) admin actions by default, but thanks for the comment :). Cirt, WP:PUF was totally inappropriate venue; there was no doubt that the file is unfree, so listing it there was utterly pointless. It should have gone to WP:FFD instead. You can always ask for admin review on WP:AN. — Edokter • Talk • 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Edokter - you are directly involved in the dispute regarding the image. You should not have been the admin to close any discussion about that image. Please cease this sort of behavior in the future in disputes where you are a previously involved party. It is best this way, to avoid appearances of impropriety. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[6] = and yet another instance of failure to understand WP:UNINVOLVED. This removal was done after my note above, in this subsection. Unfortunately, it appears this is a pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident... Cirt (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Placing a CSD tag while the image (and it's replacement) is under discussion is disruptive, and only intended to derail any ongoing discussion. I cannot tolerate editors pulling out every trick from the book in order to disrupt discussions and derail ongoing processes. The image should not have been nominated while discussion is still pending. — Edokter • Talk • 12:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not make excuses for failure to abide by WP:UNINVOLVED. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that this is a classic case of WP:IAR, which is explicitly an excuse for failure to abide by WP:UNINVOLVED. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 22:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And continuing in this vein, if you want File:Christina de Souza.jpg undeleted you should either ask the deleting admin to do it or go to deletion review like any other editor would do. I've redeleted it: Stifle's concern was as convincing as ever. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, it was an error on my part to simply redelete the image, so I have reverted this and opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 10#File:Christina de Souza.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Details within Doctor Who Series 5 trailer

You removed a section saying there that the magpie electronics sign is seen in the trailer, i think this more relevant than initially thought as Mark Gatiss has been confirmed as the a writer for series 5, and since his episode The Idiots Lantern featured the company. I think this comment is just as worthy being put in the description of the trailer as is the information on "The doctor punching a man, firing a handgun, hitting a dalek, the weeping angels returning, a reptillian species (bit speculative, for all we know they could be amphibious) and vampiric humanoids". So explain why was it removed? -77.102.108.91 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials - BBC7 serials

Hi, I've reverted some changes you made to List of Doctor Who serials#Radio broadcasts in December, since the BBC7 serials are not the same list as List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish#Eighth Doctor New Adventures. See the talk page Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Restoration of BBC7 radio serials for the full, detailed (and quite possibly dull) explanation. While I'm on your talk page - thanks for semi-protecting the serials list page! Andrew Oakley (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Status of "The Eleventh Hour" as a Regeneration Story

Hi, Edokter! I'd just like to discuss the issue of placing "The Eleventh Hour" on the list of Regeneration stories. I believe there may be a slight miscommunication as to what does and does not constitute a regeneration story. In the context of the list of Regeneration Stories, a regeneration story in any serial or episode of Doctor Who in which either a) an incarnation of the Doctor "dies" (regenerates) or b) an incarnation of the Doctor recovers from post-regenerative trauma and experiences his first adventure. While the stories in which a current incarnation dies are often the ones that include the regeneration and the new Doctor's first actual appearance, the stories that follow them, which may or may not begin with a recap of the event, are still considered to be regenerations stories. This is why {Spearhead from Space and The Christmas Invasion, which have no regeneration footage, are on the list of regeneration stories*. For this very same reason, "The Eleventh Hour" constitutes a regeneration story; whether or not we get to see footage of the regeneration once more, this story will deal with the Eleventh Doctor's first adventure. If your issue is with the lack of sourcing, that can easily be taken care of. So will you please reconsider your stance on the issue and allow users to revert the change? Thank you!

And why The Stolen Earth and Journey's End probably belong in the "see also" section as opposed to the list proper, but that's another point entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levi3o4 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't know anything about the story, so we have no clue if it is in any way connected the the Doctor's regeneration. Unless you can provide a source which establishes a connection, you can not put it in; that would be speculation. — Edokter • Talk • 17:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, plus "regeneration story" usually means the story in which a regeneration is explicitly depicted, and the Tennant-Smith transformation appears as complete at the end of the episode just gone as, say, the Ecclestone-Tennant one was before The Christmas Invasion. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Usually, but "The Christmas Invasion" had a great deal to do with the regeneration (and he grew a hand), so it counts too. — Edokter • Talk • 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Template_talk:Thumb

Left a messge for you here :>) Template_talk:Thumb Trev M (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 5.1 Music Disc

The article 5.1 Music Disc has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced for 3½ years, fails WP:V.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Cass Ole (The Black Stallion).jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cass Ole (The Black Stallion).jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Cass Ole (The Black Stallion).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cass Ole (The Black Stallion).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:End of Time 1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:End of Time 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Note - I did not tag the picture for deletion, I'm just doing you the courtesy of informing you as the tagger did not. Exxolon (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Eight Doctor companions in novels template

I can see what you mean as to the idea for linking the novels to the companions - but the template doesn't do that. It's only present on the companion pages. Secondly not all novels are shown just the ends of the larger ranges. If you want to use the novels as some sort of chronological sequence for the template, I would recommend delinking them. If the stories are all linked together forming a distinct and verfiable sequence then they should all be included and the template present on all those pages. How would you resolve this issue? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a navbox template perse... these templates are primarely for showing companion chronology and tenures, that is why they show on companion pages only. The novel links provide the begin- and ending tenures for the companions, so not all novels are linked; those are already in the article. — Edokter • Talk • 13:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:To The Last Man (Torchwood).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:To The Last Man (Torchwood).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Please note I did not nominate the image for deletion. Exxolon (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Iqbal_Theba

1. In the Iqbal_Theba article it should be noted that he is Muslim. He is Muslim accodring to this article:http://www.currybear.com/wordpress/?p=3566 please put in as a reference. 2. Would could you clean up my references on The Seventh Coin page? Could you help to see which references should go under production and which references should under Reception? I have the references of production and Reception mixed up thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

These questions are best posted to the article's respective talk pages. — Edokter • Talk • 12:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who

am i doing right> wot? Dr Who is beyond earths limited concepts As a concept he's well ahead of all so called prophets If he had to pick one, he'd certainly be Buddhist But it's way beyond that sort of mundane earthly meaningless He has fun and He Lives!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.30.191 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Flesh and Stone. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

An Unearthly Child (Pilot Episode)

Hi there listen I know I've put the Doctor Who Pilot episode on wikipedia but the only reason I put it on there is because I looked at a lot of television shows on wikipedia and they had Pilot episoded written about them. So I thought should I write an article on An Unearthly Child (Pilot Episode). But all I can say is Im sorry for wasting your time and thanks for the help. MrLuke485 (talk) 08:13, 21 September (UTC)

Most TV shows had their pilot acyually aired, but not this one. And there is a whole section devoted to the unaired pilot in the original article. With so many articles, we'd like to minimize any splintering of information. — Edokter • Talk • 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see your point but thanks anyway. MrLuke485 (talk) 17:35, 22 September (UTC)

Disruption

I should draw your attention to this as well as to my response on the PUF page. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 13:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edokter. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 13:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For creating (and helping me out with) the generally awesome {{Gradient}}. sonia♫ 00:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jonja. That one is going on my user page :) — Edokter • Talk • 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sooo much! :-)

Waow, User:Edokter/fonttest - and especially the screenshots that goes along with it - is super useful. Screenshots are indeed the only way to describe what happens with different configurations. Browsershots really is a useful tool (sadly the only time I tried to use it I couldn't get it to work). Thanks for this useful input. Now a much more difficult thing to do would be to make screenshots with different screens and resolutions. Maybe if we ask a handful of users to each make a screenshot of your page? What say you? Dodoïste (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Quiddity made the screenshots. What did you have in mind with different screens and resolutions? Setting a screen to a different resolution does not effect the font appearence; only the pixels get bigger/smaller. — Edokter • Talk • 00:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
:-) Thanks to Quiddity too then. Yes the screen resolution changes the size of pixels, which in turn affects readability. It is well known that while higher screen resolution improve graphic sharpness, it also makes it harder to read. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for this [8], just an iPhone mis-tap! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps too high resolution on your iPhone? :) — Edokter • Talk • 01:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
While screen resolutions increase overtime, so does screen size; the size of a pixel decreased very little over the past decade. 96 DPI is still the defacto standard. It is ultimately a personal preference of the reader. — Edokter • Talk • 01:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
What? 96 DPI? I use 133 DPI, and 96 looks WAY too big. But that fonttest page looks fine, even at my rediculous resoultion. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Gradient template

I love it! Put it to use on Jimbo's userpage and it looks great! Thanks for creating it! Cheers, Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, now that is a good use of gradients. Yes, subtle colors for subtle gradients is indeed the good design choice. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Some people get carried away a bit. — Edokter • Talk • 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

{{PlayStation key press}} TfD

Hey,

Out of interest, did you do the nomination manually? The edit summary looks like a standard Twinkle nom, which would have automatically pinged the original author. TW massively simplifies XfD because it does all the annoying bits by itself, in case you're not currently using it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It was all manual, I copied all the stuff rom the TfD page. — Edokter • Talk • 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay. No worries. Using Twinkle for TfDs makes the process trivial and helps to ensure all the hoops are jumped through, if you want to give it a go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Left aligned row headers

Hi. I replied to your opinion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#some wikitable ideas. Do you still oppose this proposal? If not, can I make an editprotect request? Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

template:navbox

Hello Mr. Edokter, nice to meet you! I wonder if you would be so kind to help me. Pl. see this Template and again see this and this in English there is (Hide/Show) option and in Hindi there is (छुपाएँ/दिखाएँ) in other languages also they are working perfectly where as in Nepali wiki there is no option, I could not build it, I request you to correct Template:Navbox related mistakes on Nepali wiki. Options should be ( लुकाउनुहोस् / देखाउनुहोस् )Bhawani Gautam Rhk (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deprecated license PD-Russia

Template:Deprecated license PD-Russia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Style-radius

Hi, you want delete {{Style-radius}}? hmm, good job. so can you move Template:Style-gradiant to a correct name? i want use that in this wiki, (also i am used that on my home wiki a lot). I dont think similar template now is available, if available, please delete my template i say where is that :). thanks --ebraminiotalk 12:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a another gradient template with more options: {{gradient}}. I'll put up {{Style-gradient}} for deletion. — Edokter • Talk • 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
hmm, great, so please speedy delete my template, by G7. thanks. also can you convert it to a redirect? i think it is better. thanks :) --ebraminiotalk 12:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Template deleted. I don't think a redirect is usefull here; it has no incoming links or transclusions, and I'd like to keep naming as simple as possible. — Edokter • Talk • 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
okay, thanks :) --ebraminiotalk 12:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Column-width, default

The template you recently created, {{Column-width}}, says in its documentation: "The default column width is 30em." While I agree with you that 30em is a good choice, I think you should explain your choice here. —bender235 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a pretty old discussion. My choice was based on the most prevalant value used in {{reflist}}. Also, most opinions seem to revolve around 30em. I honestly cannot provide an exact reason why 30em is the best choice. — Edokter • Talk • 15:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I know the discussion is old, but it is still open. I think we should use 30em column-width by default, but there is no consensus thus far. You could help establishing it by uttering your preference for 30em there, too. —bender235 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. — Edokter • Talk • 00:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Very nice explanation. Thank you very much. —bender235 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Now let's hope there is some response. — Edokter • Talk • 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Greyhound: Madden reference

There are a host of references and links on Wikipages to information that are not free but require a visit to a library or some purchasing power. Viz on the Greyhound page alone:- 5.^ Snow, D.H. and Harris R.C. "Thoroughbreds and Greyhounds: Biochemical Adaptations in Creatures of Nature and of Man" Circulation, Respiration, and Metabolism Berlin: Springer Verlag 1985 6.^ Snow, D.H. "The horse and dog, elite athletes - why and how?" Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 44 267 1985 7.^ Curtis M Brown. Dog Locomotion and Gait Analysis. Wheat Ridge, Colorado: Hoflin 1986 ISBN 0866670610 // 10.^ Livingood, Lee (2000). Retired Racing Greyhounds for Dummies, p. 143-144. IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., Foster City, CA. ISBN 0764552767. 11.^ Branigan, Cynthia A. (1998). Adopting the Racing Greyhound, p. 17-18. Howell Book House, New York. ISBN 087605193X. So please desist from deleting the reference to Madden's recent paper on the absurd pretext that it is SPAM. Read the abstract available through the link, and if you have any further comment please discuss it. Met vriendelijke groeten--Richard Hawkins (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope Edokter doesn't mind me chiming in here, but I wanted to point out to you, Richard Hawkins, that quite apart from the issue of the "required reading"-ness or spamminess of your link, our external link guidelines explicitly say that "Links to be avoided" include "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation."
You may be conflating sources and external links, Richard. Books, scholarly articles, and the like which may have required payment to see are perfectly acceptable as sources, providing they meet our reliable sourcing guidelines, but in the case of external links, which are intended to be accessible further reading for article viewers, pay-per-view, buy-this-article, or subscribe-to-read sites are not acceptable. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in. You said all i wanted to say. — Edokter • Talk • 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Then please try to be more constructive, and think of valuable content. Your advice came after two, or was it three deletions (called spam!) pity about the waste of time.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Error on my part. — Edokter • Talk • 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

recent change in monobook.css

Your recent change in the monobook css has caused issues with huggle, do you know of a way to fix this or is it possible that the update was not needed?--Jab843 (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC) please ignore the above, problem fixed --Jab843 (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment at WP:Huggle/Feedback#The main pane has the edits messed up, that hopefully explains the situation a little better??!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsorted

Though your addition to Template:Wider attention is technically correct, I had long refrained from adding a template example for Unsorted because technically, there are infinitely many ways to get something sorted into Unsorted. There's {{rfctag}}, but then there's {{rfctag|unsorted}}, {{rfctag|misspelledcategory}}, {{rfctag|ionlywanttoseeyoulaughinginthepurplerain}}, and so on until the end of time. That being said, I don't disagree with your edit either, so I'll let it stand. harej 04:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I only did it because even I was slightly confused, thinking "what am I going to put in there?" — Edokter • Talk • 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Which makes sense. Though ideally, there's nothing in the Unsorted category. I view it more as something that needs to be emptied when something ends up there somehow. harej 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe adding 'Technical' is an idea? — Edokter • Talk • 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles Deleted

Hello, I'm hoping you can assist me. Two articles written were deleted for I assume "copyright" material but I am not certain. I have no idea why exactly these articles were deleted and would like the opportunity to revise and repost correct versions.

Article 1: The Urban Shopper Article 2: Urban Consumerism Article 3: Urban Market Basket (not deleted, as yet)

by Currieus currieus@optonline.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Currieus (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Death Of The Doctor

You undid the formatting I had made to this page regarding the names of former Doctor Who companions noted in this programme. The formatting is correct in terms of how the characters were named in the show. No last names were given. It is obvious to any DW fan who the characters are, but it is incorrect to name them in the manner you formatted. I noted that in my original edit. TVArchivistUK (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it incorrect? They link to the same character names, so it is appropriate to format them in the same way. The quotes are unencyclopedic, and we should craft the text that is understandable to all readers, DW fans or not. — Edokter • Talk • 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Because in the show itself, the character of Sarah Jane just says (and I'm paraphrasing), "there's a 'Tegan' somewhere in Australia and a 'Ben' and 'Polly' in India". Nobody in the programme identifies them as Tegan Jovanka or Ben Jackson. It's a clear reference to former characters, which is why it should link to their pages, but they were not named as such. Thus it is incorrect to identify them by their full names. TVArchivistUK (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're just ignoring me and making the edits the way you want them. I have never entered into an edit war on this site and I won't start now, but you have made the article incorrect. Surely that's not the aim of wikipedia. Have fun! TVArchivistUK (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Regarding the edit request here, yes there is no secure version of the prototype wiki. However, because of that, the secure server should bypass any Wikimedia links that start with "prototype" so that it doesn't link to the secure Wikimedia. Therefore, the edit should be made. Also, the same thing was done with status.wikimedia.org; see this edit. I think you misunderstood the purpose of the requested edit. HeyMid (contributions) 15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. HeyMid (contributions) 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Bold_row_headers

Hi. This and the prior change need deeper solutions. I would really prefer a generated solution for the scope attributes, as it will never happen consistently on a manual basis. And the CSS needs some serious thought without being driven by a few stakeholders such as FLC and DISCOG. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Description duly attempted...

...though as I say, I nevertheless feel that a visualisation of the Source is not at all necessary for readers' understanding of "The Doctor's Daughter"
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Doctor's Daughter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 14:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.png is now a Valued Picture
An image created by you has been promoted to valued picture status
Your image, File:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.png, was nominated on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Acather96 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ivegotbellyfur

Moot point now, put those barnstarts were nicked from my user page. I've had a troll infestation recently, to the extent that I've had my talk page protected; this might be a continuation of sorts. HalfShadow 23:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. I've seen his edits. It's a continuation from here HalfShadow 23:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
If he is a sock, shouldn't he be blocked indef? — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Already brought it up with the blocking admin. HalfShadow 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Reflist changes

OK, so I supported the change to column-width, but I'm on a widescreen, and for articles with {{reflist|2}}, I'm getting multiple columns spreading the refs thin so it's harder to read (because they're not meant to to be three or four columns, only two). It would make sense (to me) to use column-width:50% rather than column-width:30em, but it doesn't seem to accept percent values. Is there any way around this, or could {{reflist}} use column-count if the parameter is |2 but column-width if it is |3? I know the goal was to let the refs adapt to whatever size screen people have, but for people with larger screens, like me, it's getting kid of annoying when trying to read refs. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit too late to turn back, but there is another solution. Reflists that use column-width or column-count have a CSS class assigned, so you can customize it. If you want to force two columns is multi-col is used, put the following in your vector.css file:
.references-column-count, .references-column-width {
    column-count: 2 !important;
    column-width: auto !important;
    -moz-column-count: 2 !important;
    -moz-column-width: auto !important;
    -webkit-column-count: 2 !important;
    -webkit-column-width: auto !important;
}
Hope this helps. — Edokter • Talk • 00:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it fixes it for all but the pages with the most refs. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite follow. Do you have examples? — Edokter • Talk • 01:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm on a different screen now, but I'll get you a screenshot later. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is on 1366x768 and this is what I expect user with even wider screens would have (I don't have a Mac, but I imagine 2560x1440 would look like that). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
That seems about right, without any custom CSS that overrides the default 30em. Are you seeing this even with the CSS in your Vector.css? — Edokter • Talk • 11:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No, the custom css fixes that, although now when I go to a page with lots of refs, it becomes really long in 2 columns only. But that can't be helped, so I guess I'm good now. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

Well you deleted my contributon because you said inexplained reasons in the doctor who compnion article ! How can i explain them ?Mehdioa (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Below the edit box is a field called "edit summary". It is always a good idea to summarise your edit in there. — Edokter • Talk • 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thanksMehdioa (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But what you present are not sources ! we cannot relie on it ! Mehdioa (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources; it will tell you what are considered good sources, such as news stories published by reputable news outlets. — Edokter • Talk • 23:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My concept for something other than a question mark

The reason I would have chosen an "I" icon instead of a question mark is because an administrator would have indicated the username is the only reason for the block. Notice in the Spam Username unblock template I still left it as a question mark. mechamind90 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But this template is not placed by an admin, but by the blocked user. I can't see the use of a comment= parameter in unblock-un. — Edokter • Talk • 21:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Unblock-auto

Hi again! Could you try to implement the new style to Template:Unblock-auto? HeyMid (contributions) 20:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I will. Please be patient. — Edokter • Talk • 20:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I was just wondering whether you will do so or not. The new style has already been implemented in the other unblock templates (including the other auto ones), I believe. HeyMid (contributions) 20:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I plan to do them all... if I can find them. Some are not in the proper categories. — Edokter • Talk • 20:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? HeyMid (contributions) 21:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Unblock templates should all be listed under Category:User block templates and Category:Unblock process. Not all of the are, but they are listed somewhere else, so it's not that much of a problem. — Edokter • Talk • 22:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica: Razor Flashbacks

hi, i noticed you undid an edit of mine to the Battlestar Galactica: Razor Flashbacks page flagging it as "unsourced", would this
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blastr.com/2010/10/battlestar-galactica-preq.php |title=Battlestar prequel to star a young Adama during first Cylon war | |date=2010-10-22 | accessdate=2010-11-22}}</ref>
be enough to restore my edit?
thanks in advance.--Zef cochrane (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The source is valid. However, it does provide any connection between Blood & Chrome and the Razor flashbacks, or Blood & Chrome being a webseries initially. So in that regard, I would have to say no. — Edokter • Talk • 13:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Unblock reviewed

Hi again. In which way is it possible to use the {{Unblock reviewed}} template as a way of unblocking a user who hasn't put up an unblock request? HeyMid (contributions) 23:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... Do you actually need a template for that? The template is "unblock reviewed". But if there was no unblock request, there is nothing to review, is there? — Edokter • Talk • 23:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd probably not need that template, even if I was an administrator, but it was your edit summary saying the unblock reviewed template can handle that, that made me wonder, but I think I assume no unblock template should be used at all if there was no unblock request. HeyMid (contributions) 23:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox User

Oops, sorry about that "major breakage". Can you add a field for the permissions, e.g. admin, rollback, etc? ~Darth Starbo 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. — Edokter • Talk • 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Help Please

I started my own wiki using mediawiki 1.16.0, but i am unable to see the full edit toolbar buttons as they are on wikipedia. The last button is "Horizontal line (used sparingly" after that there are no buttons! I got to know from google searches that if we change the Mediawiki:Common.js the edit toolbar buttons will appear but i dont know how to do it, as i am not fully aware of javascript! can u please help be getting these buttons working on my wiki! I would be so thankful to you! BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 14:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Im'not an expert in installations either, so all I can do is redirect you to mw:Help. — Edokter • Talk • 14:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Italic title infobox

That was quite a strange action you took on this template. Even if there were 40 articles still using the template (there are not - any you see in "what links here" are outdated), how can you justify full protection? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know they were "outdated", so it was still potentially high-risk. If it is indeed no longer used, then go ahaed and unprotect it, or better, delete it. — Edokter • Talk • 18:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox

Edokter, to where did you move the auto archiving notice when you removed it from Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox? --Bsherr (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't moved it yet, but it should go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header (looking for a good spot). Also, is a documentation template really necessary for a one-line notice? — Edokter • Talk • 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the documentation template is necessary. It provides links to create a sandbox and testpages. It also provides a clearer separation between the contents of the template and the documentation itself. It's considered a best practice, even for single lines of documentation. --Bsherr (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The arvhive links box is only used on the admin noticeboards, which I maintain by hand. It really doen't need a sandbox. The documentation template is actually a bit in the way and means more pages for me to watchlist. — Edokter • Talk • 01:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain more about how it's in the way? Maybe we can fix your concern? --Bsherr (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like that template to be self-contained, without any dependency on sub-templates. — Edokter • Talk • 01:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain the purpose? Maybe there's an alternative approach to accomplishing it? --Bsherr (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
(←) The purpose is managebility. The less pages I have to watch, the better. The documentation template is just overkill; there are no instruction on usage, just a note for the maintainer(s). There is no alternative to just removing it. — Edokter • Talk • 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Edokter, I understand. But it's not so big a deal to add a page to your watchlist. And bear in mind that, while I hope we'll have you here forever, it's important to document the use of vital templates carefully, just in case someone else needs to take over. Could you help me? Is there a significance to the number of bluelink archives versus redlink archives? Is there a particular event that triggers updating the template? --Bsherr (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I update whenever there is one redlink left per section. At which time I increment the rule numbers on that section in the template, and add a rule for that section in Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all. — Edokter • Talk • 01:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. I'll write out some additional usage documentation. --Bsherr (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

SHM-CD

What the heck are you doing messing with the SHM-CD page? This is a valuable page for people who don't know what an shm-cd is. This is a new standard being used in Japan and is very popular. There is no need to delete that page. Your deletion was just your opinion. What if I proposed to delete your page because of my opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.134.244.230 (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion a week ago (I did not delete it myself), and notified the original author. Everyone had a weeks time to contest the deletion, but no one did. Hence it was deleted without opposition. You may ask for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Edokter • Talk • 13:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor

Hi, Edokter.

Given that Wired Magazine independently cites David Morrissey of The Next Doctor as mentioning Colin Salmon as a possible 11th Doctor, (Colin Salmon Fishes for Doctor Who Role: "While David Morrissey (guest star on the David Tennant-led Who Christmas special, "The Next Doctor") was shedding some secrets about his role in that new episode, Colin Salmon’s name popped up for the most coveted role on British TV") do you oppose restoring the rumour with Wired added as a source? If you do not oppose the edit on other grounds, given your prior revert, can you restore it with the source (Wired.co,/underwire "Colin Salmon Fishes for Doctor Who Role" John Scott Lewinski, November 8, 2008) so that I do not violate wp3rr?

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the name can be added, but without the Sun reference; that is still considered a bad source, even if they are right. — Edokter • Talk • 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

References css

I fail to understand what you are doing with the CSS for references. Can you add explenatory comment to the css, or at least document the reasoning in the Talk page of Common.css ? We have an unwritten policy btw that ALL changes should be proposed on the talk page before deploying them. Please adhere to that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#styling <references /> like Reflist. There is a whole discussion regarding references. The added code is in preparation of the outcome of that discussion. Also note that the code is not active yet. (But I should have pointed to the discussion.) I will explain on the talk page. — Edokter • Talk — 16:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 ANI

Since you closed the last ANI thread on Bender235, I want to give you a pointer to a new one [9]. Rather than stopping, Bender235 has started spamming talk pages while also making the edits he was advised to avoid. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. — Edokter • Talk — 23:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully, you can tell me what I am supposed to do. If I act boldly, CBM says I'm breaching consensus. If I inquire for what the consensus is, CBM says I'm spamming the talk pages. It seems like there's no way to please him. —bender235 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the best course of actions is for you to wait out the discussion that you initiated on WP:Village Pump (proposals). Once that reaches a conclusion, hopefully in the form of a consensus, then you can take it to the article talk pages to poll the editors how they feel about presenting the references. A discussion takes time, and people get frustrated if the same subject is discussed at multiple venues. It creates the appearance of you trying to force a point instead of being enthousiastic about it. So just wait for the main discussion to end, then worry about the articles. — Edokter • Talk — 00:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. —bender235 (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reflist

Hi Edokter, I noticed you changed the font size for that template, but what I get from the discussion at Village Pump it should rather have been the other way round. <references/> should have been styled like the former {{Reflist}}, i.e. with a small font for both templates. Please see also my comment at Template talk:Reflist. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I replied there; as the classname changed, Common.css needs to catch up. Purge your cache to see the smaller font soze again. — Edokter • Talk — 14:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kyoto Municipal Zoo

Thanks. It also only applies to the ref that turns up as #1 in the list. I didn't realize it only applied to the very last line break between the "}}" and "</ref>". There is a discussion going on about this particular template bug, which has been recently introduced here (though I suppose you already know that). Line breaks are supposedly allowed in citations and refs, so I decided to leave my affected articles alone for now until the bug is fixed. Are you saying that this template bug is not likely to get fixed? Donlammers (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically, nothing should be broken. The only difference with the new CSS is that references in {{reflist}} are wrapped in a div. What causes these linebreaks is a bit of a mistery to me as well. However, it would seem as if those references suffer the same problem as if those templates were used without any references template like {{reflist}} or <references />. Ans some examples I've seen make gratious use of linebreaks and spaces in a way that it should go wrong. In a nutshell; single whitelines should not pose a problem. Double whitelines do (even if one line only contains "}}"), as do prefixed spaces before "{{", which triggers code boxes. For this article, this was all it needed to be fixed. — Edokter • Talk — 18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems to be sorted. — Edokter • Talk — 21:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

overlap preventer, F and A

Thanks for inserting that thing. Now we now how to stop this. Image placement, optimised for a large range of window widths and other setttings, is much neglected, I think. The overlap happens only at larger widths. We will use this regularly now. Tony (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Template:·

It breaks templates which use this markup: 

'''[[Link]]{{·}}[[Link]]{{·}}[[Link]]'''

It seems that, when using a </b>, Wiki Markup will close the three apostrophe bolds (and in that example only the first link will be bolded). Using span tags avoids that.  狐 FOX  00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's test it:
Link · Link · Link
Bold in wikimarkup with (embedded bold) in HTML
Bold in wikimarkup with  (embedded bold preceded by &nbsp;) in HTML
Indeed; it turns out that the &nbsp; is is mucking it up. Defenitely a bug. — Edokter • Talk — 00:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it the nbsp? Makes more sense, I reckon.  狐 FOX  00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
How does that make sense? — Edokter • Talk — 00:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
More sense than the closing "b", I mean. Considering you've tested it.  狐 FOX  00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The only sense it makes ios knowing what causes it. I've filed a bugreport. — Edokter • Talk — 00:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Awesome.  狐 FOX  01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Unblock-auto reviewed

Hello! I don't know whether you intentionally added the "1", but it made a decline show the accepted image, so I removed the number. HeyMid (contribs) 13:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! That was for testing. My bad. — Edokter • Talk — 14:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe you intended to write {{{1}}}? HeyMid (contribs) 14:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I wanted to test to green icon; I simply forgot to remove the 1. — Edokter • Talk — 19:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Soft redirect

With respect to this: [10] Do you mind participating in the discussion on the talk page and explain why you think the duplication is bad? It seems like it would make things easier on our readers so why not? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Phanerozoic 220px

hi, can you do this? thank you.--ebraminiotalk 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add to HTML line-break code to Wiki markup list before "[[Category:]]"

Hello, E. I hope that I might here discuss Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to add "<br />" to Wiki markup before "Category:" if only as a post-mortem.

Let me say that I wince at some of my own earlier Edits there, which doubtless contributed to confusion (including some of my own, initially at least, may I say). Still, it is hard to accept what I believe are misinterpretations & misrepresentations of what I did say there. I attribute such not to bad faith but to defective arguments and what I seemed to me an inattentiveness or disregard for what I wrote. I tried in each of my edits to respond to at least some arguments with an argument of my own in an attempt to clarify.

Your action and statement in closing discussion of the above link look so close to categorical, that I believe you would take offense at even one or a few instances of my trying to substantiate statements above. Yet, knowing my beliefs in this matter, would you have any advice that you would be willing to give that might allow reconsideration in a way such that I could at least avoid repeating earlier mistakes? Thank you for your consideration. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Template: Userbox-2

Hi. I left a follow-up message at Template talk:Userbox-2. --Mepolypse (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

top icons

Thanks so much -- I couldn't figure that one out. However, the autopatrolled icon now obscures the terminal link to my DRosenbach/head template -- would you be able to rectify that, and then I'll just check the edit history to see how you did it. Thanks! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you still use monobook, so I didn't see the problem at first. I moved the links to the left by 3em, so there should be no overlap anymore. — Edokter • Talk — 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ha..."I still use monobook." I don't even know what that means. I found this head on someone else's page and copied it for myself. Anyway, thanx so much and have a great day! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Monobook was the old default skin, the new default skin is Vector. Here's how your page looks in Monobook and in Vector. You can set your skin under My preferences > Appearance. — Edokter • Talk — 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes. When they offered the new format I turned it down -- I like the old one much better. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Logo Question

I'm not sure if I'm looking wrong, but is the Wikipedia Logo a bit blurry? I wanted to ask you because you uploaded the last version. It seemed to have changed in the last few days, though. Cheers! ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 02:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The logo was changed for one day (for the 10th anniversary), after which I restored the original version. I don't see anything wrong with it. — Edokter (talk) — 03:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh haha, my eyes must be wrong then. Time for new glasses! Cheers! ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 14:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

USS Yorktown collision

I see from the edit history that you are the one who wrote the blurb for the Yorktown collision picture. Just as an FYI, try to remind Howcheng to remind the nominator that the image will go up on the main page in the next day or two please. In this case I was the nominator, and I missed this image's appearance on the main page because no one drop me a line to remind me of this, and felt bad about it since I was looking forward to seeing it on the mainpage. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. To be fair, I only wrote the blubr; the image was selected long before, so I didn't bother to check if the uploader/nominator was notified. Something I will do in the future. — Edokter (talk) — 02:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edokter/Archive_4&oldid=1091505424"