User talk:Edokter/Archive 2

AfD nomination of Truth & Consequences

I have nominated Truth & Consequences, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth & Consequences. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jackaranga (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

UKTV - FYI

Is here, but searching their website gives no reference to Torchwood. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What??

You posted on my user page, claiming I had made a personal threat. I never did, your link doesn't show that I did. What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say you made a personal threat; you accused Pgagnon999 of making a personal threat. That borders on a personal attack. However, in case you are someone else, please note that the IP you are posting from may be used by more then one person. — Edokter • Talk • 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

His personal threats

He IS engaging in personal threats. He posts that he can uncover who people really are and report them to relevant authorities. I could look up his IP and get his home address in about two minutes. I don't, because I'm not a jackass. Other people apparently don't have those kind of scruples. You say you're an admin. Clearly you should be aware of these issues. Do you support people running around wikipedia making these kinds of threats and accusations??? This idiot started several days ago on this article and has been making threats and accusations from then. When another admin REFUSED to go along with his rants, he's since had to take this route. Again, apparently that's fine with you. Excellenmt job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He did not make a thread of any kind; you are posting from a shared, public IP, whereas he has his IP hidden. He speculated your IP's origins, but there were no "threats". Now please discuss the subject further at the talk page, throwing wild accusations and disrupting Wikipedia by editing arguments directly in the article itself does not help your case. — Edokter • Talk • 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. He did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.203 (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is where Pgagnon999 started with a threat to report someone to their system admisinstrator.

With regard to Middletown, Connecticut, your removal of the Neutrality tag constitutes conflict of interest as your IP address is a state website. If you would like to dispute the tag, please open a discussion on the talk page for the article. Otehrwise, you'll end up on the Wiki list of organizations/ agencies that self edit--a pretty embarassing place to be. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where he was engaged in further activity to intimidate a poster: Also interesting is a history of edits from user at the Connecticut gov. (Middletown gov?) state IP address and a seemingly related Wesleyan Univeristy IP. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This vicious and underhanded behavior is threatening and abusive.

He does not engage in civil behavior, he deletes QUOTED material and then posts garbage from lame sites that support his narrow and partisan beliefs. ---That's nasty behavior. And astonishing to me that you support him in it.

He's pushing point of view, he's violated neutrality, he's deleted referenced material, he's certainly does not assume good faith. I mean, he's out there attacking people and all but terrorizing them. And that's the guy you've put your support behind. Great.

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in RE Middletown, Connecticut. Besides the behavior evidenced in editing the article, the user has also left harassing comments on my user page. . .looks like they were just blocked. Again, thanks.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but people can see what you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.203 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the problem user signed on again & deleted via 66.19.34.88. Sorry this has turned into such a nightmare.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I have asked for a deletion review of Image:TheEmptyChild.jpg Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood

Perhaps we'll now get a well-earned rest until the 16th? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Defenitely... I'm sleeping in tomorrow! — Edokter • Talk • 02:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Partners in crime

Hello Edoktor. I noticed you, quite rightly, made this edit [1]. I don't know if you noticed that the anon IP that made it has done a bunch of editing at this page Partners in crime. The lack of a "C" in the title is only one of the pages problems. I don't know if you will want to move the page or do something else with it (and it may get deleted, also), but, I will leave it up to you whether something should be done. The younger Doctor Who fans do love to enter as many rumors to the articles as they can don't they? Thanks for all your hard work on the various DW pages to try to keep them encyclopedic. MarnetteD | Talk 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, the page should ultimately be move to Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), which already exists as a redirect to List of Doctor Who serials#Series 4 (2008). However, looking at the content, it should probably deleted for now; it is full of speculation and original research. I'll put it up for AfD. — Edokter • Talk • 15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've got it watched. Will ^(talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: contentSub

I'm well aware that it's not a hack; it wasn't displaying in the same place as the software-generated text would. I'd be happy to upload a screenshot if you'd like. Also, personally, I like the text below the redirect as it is more noticeable and it makes it clear that the redirect is intentionally un-functioning. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the text was a little too low. However the redirectText class (big font) did work. Do you mind if I put that back? — Edokter • Talk • 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, not at all. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Love & Monsters

You as an admin know better than to revert war over content disputes, which is what that looks like to me. I'm no admin, but I'll say this: Since the user keeps going against the current consensus of the article, it could probably be blocked, right? Obviously you are involved so shouldn't block the user yourself, which is probably why you put a note over at WP:AN. So, clearly, you are correct in your reverts, but since it isn't "vandalism", then it probably wasn't a good idea to keep reverting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I never called it vandalism, and since I reverted once per 24 hours, 3RR isn't really an issue. I did stop reverting and asked on AN for someone else to have a look. — Edokter • Talk • 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I count more than once: Jan 5 (19:56), Jan 6 (07:54), Jan 6 (19:46). That would be 3 reverts within a 24-hour period (with 10 minutes to spare). I'd like to AGF on the IP account, so I am not going to say it could be a sock, however I completely agree that the user hasn't been communicating, and that doesn't help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Doctor Who The Christmas Invasion.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Doctor Who The Christmas Invasion.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to do, the desired outcome is the status quo, but I think you might have missed this one Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_6#Image:3doctardis.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Edokter, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you find a badly phrased sentence, adjust it, don't delete it.

That's in the Wikipedia guidelines anyway. Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.20.98 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject DoctorWho - Image Deletion

Hello Edokter, I wanted to ask you a question about image deletion policy. I see that you have recently had a dialogue with Fasach Nua about the deletion of some Tom Baker and Doctor Who images in respect to which the former had insisted upon deleting.

Fasach Nua has also just deleted a publicity still of Alexandra Moen (playing Lucy Saxon) from the article of the same name which had originally been uploaded by another user but which I had linked in to that article. I have included a Fair Use Rationale for the article on the image template. Fasach Nua again deleted the image saying that it was not possible to argue fair use in the circumstance of living people as they were deemed to be replaceable. I have checked an essay on the policy here at Living People and there seems to be no consensus view, rather administrators can make a judgment call. What is your view on this? Should the image of Alexandra be re-instated? Kind regards--Calabraxthis 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In this case, Fasach has a point (though he should not cite an essay). It is not a publicity still, but a cropped screenshot, and those are generally not acceptable to illustrate (living) actors. had it been an actual promotional photo released by the BBC, it would have been less problematic. But is this case, Fasach is right; the image should go. — Edokter • Talk • 09:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice on this. I understand the point. Can you tell me if you think that this promotional image which was released on a BBC created website to generate publicity for Doctor Who - Tho Sound of Drums would be suitable for inclusion within the article: http://www.haroldsaxon.co.uk/lucysaxon.shtml ? Kind regards--Calabraxthis 11:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that image is not released for publication, but already part of a published work (the website). Promotional images are ususally found as part of news releases and presskits. — Edokter • Talk • 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I have just done a web-search for BBC press-kits and found this document [2] which is the BBC press release folio for the Winter-Spring 2008 season. You will see at page 35 of the document (page 20 of the pdf file) under the heading for Hotel Babylon, that Alexandra Moen has been added to the cast. There is a picture of her along with the rest of the cast. If I were to extract that image, would that constitute fair use? If not, I have also found this image published on The Sun website which appears as though it has been lifted from BBC promotional materials in relation to Doctor Who [3]. Would this qualify as fair use as presumably the copyright is held by the BBC rather than News Corporation? Kind regards--Calabraxthis 12:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Sun is already published, so that won't work. And the BBC portfolio has her in character, which is also a problem (plus the quality is simply too low). It would be allowed in Hotel Babylon, but not on Alexandra Moen. — Edokter • Talk • 14:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"dash dash dash"

I'm the IP. I put there so i could remember where I left off. Will ^(talk) 13:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah OK :) Tip: use a comment (< ! --) — Edokter • Talk • 14:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind - normally I rewrite plots in userspace, and I use the horizontal line in those cases. Will ^(talk) 15:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

FYI, for someone so concerned with accuracy: it's spelled UNVERIFIABLE.

Replaceable fair use Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Roodngis (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That is great news! I'm glad you're back; I'd be lost :) And there's absolutely no shame in taking more (and longer) wikibreaks. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ifd

I accidently put today'snominations in on the 17th's section, I have moved them to todays section, along with your contribution Fasach Nua (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then...

"It was a word joke; it doesn't insinuate anything. " In that case, I'm going to delete the LINK as well, because if it doesn't insinuate anything, there's no reason for the word 'beard' to be linked, either. Assuming that word should be linked is original research, you fucking prick. 65.87.20.98 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:POINT before doing anything... — Edokter • Talk • 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Majorly's deletions

User:Matthew's old uploads. Will ^(talk) 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it customary to delete images of leaving wikipedians? — Edokter • Talk • 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If the pages haven't been edited, yeah, G7 applies. Will ^(talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But he left months ago... his last edit was November 10 2007. Why is Majorly now deleting all his old images? — Edokter • Talk • 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Majorly and Matthew know each other to the point Majorly withdrew his RfA other a sock accusation. Will ^(talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That much I've gathered by now... Still seems odd the images being deleted months later. — Edokter • Talk • 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored two images; one before I knew what was going on, and Image:Invasion of the Bane.jpg because it only just received GA status. However, we can change the image if you feel it is the better way. — Edokter • Talk • 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Weevils Stories

Template:Weevils Stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Voyage

Nice catch ;). I'm going to polish it onwards to FA, so I can get it on the main page on Christmas Day - poetic, no?. I'm also going to get Doomsday on the main page soon (if it passes FA) - hopefully on the show's return date, but November 23 is always a backup date. Will ^(talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Will help where I can. Have there been any DW articles on the main page before? — Edokter • Talk • 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The show's page (December 16 2004) and TARDIS (8 March 2006) Will ^(talk) 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And Dalek was on the Main Page on May 23 2005. If Wikipedia (and the show) survives that long, I might get Sydney Newman on the main page for the show's fiftieth anniversary. Will ^(talk) 12:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: LoS

Nah. I was actually going to go around and G7 it anyway. Will ^(talk) 15:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

About the navboxes - the changes I made were so that anyone updating the templates (for any reason) need not do the same twice (they're transcluded on the portal) Will ^(talk) 16:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. You did break the state and bottom parameters though. I'll fix those. — Edokter • Talk • 16:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for a little help

Hi, sorry to bug on you, but having seen you do edits on Doctor Who, I figured I'd contact you rather than picking some admin completely at random. Anyway, I'm hoping you can help me with a situation with a page move: Basically, there existed a page for Adam Russell, which used to contain information on the bassist for the band Story of the Year. This information at some point in the past was changed to a simple redirect to the band's page. In December of last year, an editor changed the information to that of one Adam W. Russell, a baseball player. So, here's where I need help (if possible) - I moved the information on the baseball player to the latter page (since guidelines/policy state not to do a cut-and-paste move), but my concern is that the page history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_W._Russell&action=history) with all the information on the former page (all the old edits with the information on the band member) went to the new page, and are no longer on Adam Russell. I'm wondering if there's a way to move ALL the edits PRIOR to December 2, 2007 back to the history for Adam Russell, while leaving the edits of December 2, 2007 on in the history for Adam W. Russell. Thanks! --Umrguy42 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What you want here is a history split, which is not possible (as opposed to a history merge when merging two articles). Basically, there is nothing wrong here; as long as the histories are preserved and associated with their respective articles, nothing needs to be changed. — Edokter • Talk • 13:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, ALL of the history went to the new moved page, and didn't remain with the original page, is my concern (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Russell&curid=15492171&action=history). Any suggestions? Or just leave as-is, and deal? (Maybe drop a note on the talk page?) --Umrguy42 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it as-is. Like I said, the history should remain with the page the edits were made on, and should be moved with the article, even if the subject changes. — Edokter • Talk • 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TeX and PngFix

Hi again Edokter,

It looks like the current version of TeX supplies the title attribute, making the markup show up in the image tooltips. However, the PngFix script doesn't support the title attribute anymore, so it would be a good idea to add

                    outerSpan.title = img.title

back into the PngFix script. This will restore the TeX markup to the tooltips for IE6 users, making Wikipedia more consistent across all browsers. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Has this new version been implemented yet? Becasue I still can't see the title attributes in the source. I'll put it in once implemented. — Edokter • Talk • 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm not an administrator, so I can't implement it. I was hoping you would. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't update TeX; that's a job for the developers. — Edokter • Talk • 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you meant "Has PngFix been updated yet?" This is really odd though...it looks like the title attributes are added via JavaScript, but I can't tell which JavaScript function is responsible... —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's function useAltForTooltips() in your monobook.js :) — Edokter • Talk • 23:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I feel rather sheepish. I completely forgot that that was there. Thanks for setting me straight! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

←This is off-topic, but while we're both online, would you be willing to do the {{editprotected}} request at MediaWiki talk:Licenses/en-ownwork? And I promise, this time it's not a wild goose chase ;-) —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks again for your help with the nav box. It is on Joseph Priestley House now - we'll see if it is an acceptable compromise. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Common.css

Hi. Your last edit to common.css has no effect. If you want to increase the box height, you need to increase the textarea's 'rows' property. — Edokter • Talk • 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It works in Firefox, Opera, and IE7. It must be just IE6 that doesn't understand this bit of CSS. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't work in Firefox either...not a lot anyway. But Commons, has the height set to 160px, not 11em. Maybe that is why I see no difference. — Edokter • Talk • 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The increase in height is slight - just a couple of lines taller. Do you think it should be taller still? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could do with a bit more... I say make it 160px. — Edokter • Talk • 00:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather do it using em's, so that it scales to match the font size. I'll try 12em. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That won't work, as the textarea's font is unrelated to the base font. Please use px. — Edokter • Talk • 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

An *please* keep edits to common.css to a bare minimum. Test using the dev toolbar or your monobook.css. — Edokter • Talk • 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for making an extra edit. With the exception of increasing the value from 11em to 12em, I did test the changes using Firebug, and I will make sure to test them in the future.

Try going to the upload form, holding down Ctrl, and then moving the scroll wheel on your mouse. This will adjust the font size. On the Commons, the statically-sized Summary box does not grow to accomodate the larger font. But on the English Wikipedia, it will grow accordingly. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Selfref

Hi, I left a note at User_talk:16@r#Removing_code explaining why changing code is often a bad idea. (I'd meant to revert that one myself). Please correct/clarify if I've gotten anything wrong. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity. He reported the removal himself on MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Template:Selfref. I explained to him there why the removal was not such a good idea. Cheers. — Edokter • Talk • 10:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey again :) Re: MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Infobox top margin tweak, yes, he means infobox (thereby solving two infobox problems at once: hatnotes being too close to them, and amboxes abutting them). Do we stack infoboxes somewhere too? Or was your stacking comment in regards to amboxes? Ta :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. I thought he ment .ambox because of the message he left at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#buffer?. That confused me a bit. — Edokter • Talk • 01:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent past

Please see user page 129.133.124.199‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.203 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Longpagewarning

#switch breaks {{reflist}}. You've left me rather confused. Was the message not working? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The message was working, but it somehow broke {{reflist}} when used in conjunction with Longpagewarning, according to this post on WP:VPT. I don't know if it is being used correctly in that case, but I think it was safe to revert for the time being. — Edokter • Talk • 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. I looked at WP:Article size and couldn't see anything amiss. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because I substed it. See the diff that Silly Rabbit pointed out. — Edokter • Talk • 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The message itself was fine, it's {{int:Longpagewarning}} that resulted in "some problems". I suspect that using {{int:}} with some other complex system messages would yield unexpected results, but that's not the reason to "fix" them by reducing their functionality. —AlexSm 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Gonzo_fan2007/Test_Area - AN header

I think it looks great! I was wondering if there was any way to make the headers bigger. I just add <big></big> tags but I wasnt sure if there was a better way to do this so that the headers stick out more. Oh and I hope there are no hard feelings. After reading my posts, I guess they could have been taken badly, but mostly I was annoyed that there seemed to be no effort to try and fix the header, you just reverted it and dint even leave a note on the talk page. You said you follow the WP:BRD, well I try and follow (excluding obvious stuff of course) WP:0RR, instead I try to enhance and let edits evolve, but thats just my belief, and why I felt that it would have been better to try and discuss and fix what was wrong. But like I said, I dont hold grudges on-wiki, so this whole thing is in the past. Back to issue at hand, do you think we should add a comment to others on the header talk page to see if they like the new design, or just add it and see what the response is? « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all! I can understand becoming a bit upset is someone just reverted their hard work. WP:0RR is a bit harch in my opinion; it leaves little room for collaboration. I put the font size in the style; it scales better then <big>. Let's ask WP:AN first if they like the new design; it already had one 'major' change. Else some who doesn't like could just revert it... :) — Edokter • Talk • 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh waht the hell... let's just put it in... — Edokter • Talk • 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks beautiful! I also like the change that someone made about "Disclaimer." Thanks for your optimizing work and we'll see if this one sticks this time ;-) « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Template:Afd top

Good evening, Edokter. I symapthize with your frustration over the recent breach of civility. I know you're trying to improve the template and our process. But your recent response did prompt a question. Let me start by admitting that I don't know what those scripts or bots do. When I close debates (admittedly rare these days), I do them manually.

In your comment, you posed the question about what the template is supposed to do. I think that is a fair question to ask. More, I think it's a good question to ask about these new parameters. What advantage are they supposed to bring us? From what I can see, all they do is change my typing from

{{subst:at}} delete. RATIONALE ~~~~     to      {{subst:at|d}} RATIONALE ~~~~

By my count, that's a savings of 5 keystrokes. that benefit is balanced against:

• a lot of your time working on this script (which you seem to enjoy but your time is still worth something)
• some amount of time by others fixing whatever scripts and bots have been built that also use the template
• an unknown amount of effort retraining closers in how to properly use the parameters.

Am I missing something here? What exactly is it that the parameters are supposed to improve? Rossami (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't forget the '''bolding'''. When doing a lot of closing, it all amounts up. So any way to save time is good, and if I can contibute to that, it is time well spent. I just don't like being locked out from improving a template, which is something which should be avoided at any cost. So scripts that depend on a template's strictly controlled output are essentially badly designed. And as the paramter will remain optional, there's no need to retrain any admins; I think they will pick up on it themselves and eventually start using it automatically. — Edokter • Talk • 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've never considered the bolding helpful. And while you're right that users like me will still have the option to ignore the parameter, most editors will try to use it, get it slightly wrong and spend some amount of time teaching themselves the right way. I'm not saying that you should stop if you're sure that it will be helpful. It wouldn't help (or hurt) me, though. Rossami (talk) 01:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Needed

I have no clue what to do with this user's user page and talk page. Could you check it out? Rgoodermote  02:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:AN can provide some advice... I'm not quite sure what to do either. — Edokter • Talk • 15:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry it took so long to get back. Rgoodermote  23:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Santa's Little Helper.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Santa's Little Helper.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Paris metro question

Hi Edokter, if you have time could you please look at {{Infobox Paris metro}}, specifically as used in these examples: Opéra (Paris Métro), Bourse (Paris Métro), Châtelet (Paris Métro). The map at the bottom is supposed to center if the box is wider than 280 px, but for some reason it does not (Bourse works as it should, the other two do not - there are others with this problem, this is just a sample). Do you have any idea how to fix this? If you do, User:Lazulilasher would be very pleased (and I would be too). Thanks in advance for any ideas or help on this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think i found the problem. The main problem was the div width set to 100%, with the images floating left inside it. So I made that div just as wide as the map, so that the div itself is centered. That should fix the problem. — Edokter • Talk • 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much - that has fixed the problem on my computer. I appreciate all of your help with this! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there...I have been a little icognito for the past month or so, thus I didn't notice that you fixed this infobox. Please accept my most sincere thanks! That template was the bane of my existence! Awesome work! Lazulilasher (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Edokter • Talk • 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood/From out of the rain

My TV guide capitalises the word "Out". Will ^(talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

TV guides are known to be wrong sometimes. :) "Out of" is a preposition and the MOS says not to capitlise those (unless they are the first word in the title). Though some articles do get it wrong. Some good examples: Bat out of Hell, Can't Get You out of My Head, I Get a Kick out of You. — Edokter • Talk • 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC capitalises "Out" in this title, therefore that is the official title (whether grammatical or not). Starhunterfan (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does the BBC do that? As I said, TV guides are often mistaken. So unless the producers confirm that "out" should be capitalised, it should follow proper styling per WP:CAPS. — Edokter • Talk • 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Source is bbc.co.uk, and is also seen onscreen in the episode in question. This is the confirmed official title. Starhunterfan (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's quite interesting, since the episode hasn't even aired yet. Plus the on screen episode tiltes are usually shown in ALL CAPS. — Edokter • Talk • 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I work on the show. That is the title as written on our scripts and on all the documentation. The BBC is the best source there is for BBC shows. Your title is not sourced at all and is not listed anywhere else. I see no reason to remove an officially-sourced title and replace it with an unsourced one you seem to have made up yourself. Starhunterfan (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I'm sorry, but I cannot take your word for it, for obvious reasons; too many editors have claimed "to work on/for" one entity or the orther. Again, unless cited to the producers, standard naming convention should be followed. — Edokter • Talk • 01:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not expecting you to take my word for it, and I never made such a claim. Like I said the title is officially sourced on the BBC official website. The title you invented does not exist outside of your edits. Why do you feel a title that comes entirely from your own brain should be given preference over an official BBC source? The "producers" are not responsible for naming episodes. There is no Wiki rule saying "producers" are the only source and the makers of the show are not. Starhunterfan (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The producers made and named the show. But no matter how sources may choose to publish the title, Wikipedia adheres to it's own convention, and should continue to do so, for the sake on naming consistency. The BBC does the same, and sometimes gets it wrong. That doesn't mean we should be wrong as well. And since the essense of the title is in no way changed, you shouldn't create so much drama over it. — Edokter • Talk • 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a long history of being warned for abusing the 3 edit rule and for locking pages whenever you are in a dispute. I know you have a big problem with anyone but you and your friends editing Torchwood but you do NOT own Torchwood and you have no right to abuse you power to ban anyone else from editing. The title you have invented is not sourced and does not exist. The official title is well-sourced. The producers do not name episodes. Please show me where Wiki rules state that if a TV show (or anything else) has a title that is not grammatical, Wiki should take it upon themselves to change the title for them. There are numerous examples of deliberately misspelled/grammaticaly incorrect titles (e.g. "Countrycide" not countryside). Starhunterfan (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to revert to mud-slinging, I suggest you take it to WP:ANI. Blowing up a few old incidents is not helping your case. — Edokter • Talk • 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not mud slinging. You are the one who has been very rude and abused your admin powers. The fact you have been warned for exactly that before it relevant. If you wish to continue to vandalise the Torchwood page and to abuse your powers then obviously we (BBC Wales) cannot make you see sense. Starhunterfan (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

Thanks for checking out my diff issues. I'm trying to figure something out, did I double post somehow? I honestly can't see it in the diffs. Can you give me a head's up on it. I feel like I'm going nuts over here.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess. First, Gettingitdone duplicated the entire AfD here and later Zsero removed all duplicate content here. All your comments are still there. — Edokter • Talk • 11:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. The only real issue I was having is that I thought there was either some technical error happening or someone was kajiggering an especially long AFD. The thing that prompted me to bring it to the notice board was that the other user kept telling me I did something wrong in the editing but refused to tell me what it was, so I was stuck having to go to outside answers. I appreciate you clearing it up for me, I'm going to jump on Gettignitdone's page and apologize.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BBC3 Ratings Torchwood?

I have noticed that you don't wish for the BBC3 ratings to be included on the torchwood episode pages. The main reason why i think it is important to show this data is because it could have a negative effect on how well Torchwood is doing in viewership. For example series 2 episode 6 (Reset) had 3.22million viewers, this was the first episode from the series to be shown on BBC3. On BBC3 it got a further 0.85million viewers from the first look a week before being on BBC2. This would make viewership total of 4.07million (making it the 2nd most watched episode ever) but currently it appears to be the lowest rated episode of the series at 3.22million. I therefore think it is important to show that torchwood is going from strength to strength since the addition of the BBC3 episodes. (91.109.156.3 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Hello, with regards to the Torchwood BBC3 Ratings I think you either need to remove all the ratings or change the dates listed for the episode to BBC2 airings as it is confusing to have the Premier date listed as the BBC3 episode and then the rating for the BBC2 episode. Also if you are only going to include terrestrial data then you also need to edit Series 1, as that also only includes BBC3 ratings info when the BBC2 airings got higher viewing figures. Richardm9 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you have a point there. Personally, I prefer to have the ratings gone alltogether, as they add little to the article. But, I'll make a compromise in the mean time; I just need the source for the BBC3 ratings. — Edokter • Talk • 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BARB - http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?RequestTimeout=500&report=weeklytop30 are the Official UK ratings board and they list the top 10 BBC3 shows there weekly. They also have top 30 terrestrial ratings too for BBC2. I agree with you about the ratings too, but everyone just seems to edit them back in on every television show out there if you remove them. Thanks for listening. Richardm9 (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that certain people like to see ratings information and most TV shows on here have their ratings somewhere on the page. Would a compromise be to have a separate ratings page off the main torchwood page. Then it might be easier to display the information in a more simplified table? ... just an idea?? (Dantheferret (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

A seperate page isn't a good idea. Usually, that ratings are put in the episode articles themself, under the Reception section, or the lead. — Edokter • Talk • 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

{{User infobox}} revert

Hi,

Sorry that this is so late, but could you describe the bugs that the new version introduced? It's pretty difficult to exhaustively test large syntax changes to templates, though I did test as widely as I could. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem was that all userboxes within the infobox had all their contents top-aligned, and I cound't find out why. Since there were 85 edits to complete the changes, it was impossible to find out where it went wrong. The best way to do these changes is to copy to your own sandbox, and make another test page using existing infoboxes to use the sandbox version instead of the template itself. — Edokter • Talk • 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a test case? I'm not sure that I see what the issue is. As for editing the template inline, yeah, I know I should have sandboxed it; I'll sandbox future edits first. But I'd like to see if I can fix this one quickly if possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here, which is using your code which is placed here. You can see the contents of the userboxes clinging to the top, while they should be vertically centered. Since I couldn't find what made this happen, it is possible that the .infobox calss is responsible for this. [...] OK, I found this code in common.css: .infobox td { vertical-align: top; }. So this should be overridden to, or not use the .infobox class at all. — Edokter • Talk • 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've been messing about in your sandbox (hope you don't mind) and I think I've found a solution. {{userbox}} can override common.css - I've requested this to be added to the template. After that, it's just a case of converting individually hacked-up userboxen to use {{userbox}}. I'm going to add this to my todo list. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that kind of works. The Babel template still suffers though. I also made some small changes, so the box is not too wide. Another problem is that {{Babel}} still uses a margin that needs to be overridden within the infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks to have fixed everything except the babelbox. I think that needs its own fix. Are we good to go with replacing the new version? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can fix Babel first. — Edokter • Talk • 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to fix the babel... The infobox.td class seems to override it all; I would need to change all (100+) uset lang template to override the top alignment. — Edokter • Talk • 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I give up! the solution is simple, override the table data style, but the parser won't let me embed a seperate data cell without spewing out table code! I've tried every possible way... — Edokter • Talk • 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This fixes itself if the language boxes use {{userbox}}. I've just converted {{user nl}} to use it and it's centered. Woo. Problem solved: just got 99 or so language boxes to convert now, but they're really easy to fix. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a solution, that's a hack. It should be possible to override the allignment centrally. I've asked in WP:VPT for help. — Edokter • Talk • 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure you can't; it's just the way CSS works. In order for any override to work, it'd either have to be a better match for the td than .infobox td, or it'd have to be overridden with !important. This way is proven to work, doesn't require any further changes, and is good for the health of the project's template space anyway. Anyway, once the editprotected request at {{user en}} goes through, sandbox2 will be correct throughout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

!important doesn';t seem to work either; I've already put it in {{babel}}, with no effect. How many language templates are there? Must be at least a hundred languages, each with 4 levels... — Edokter • Talk • 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are lots, but the thing is that so long as the problem can be attributed to the userboxen themselves then there's no reason not to update the infobox. I imagine that the use of language boxes is heavily skewed towards a half-dozen European ones, so that's really not too many and they're easy to fix. What do you think? Should we wait until there's been some bigger progress in updating the userboxen, or make the switch now and tidy up the boxes as they come up? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Let's update the most used languages first. That way, no one will try to fix it. — Edokter • Talk • 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll see what I can get done tonight. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to update you: all the en, en-us, fr, de, nl and es templates (except es-N, waiting for editprotected) should be be up to date. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for all the work. I've updated es-N for you. — Edokter • Talk • 13:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

{{User time zone}}

{{subst:Edokter/Archive 2}}...The use of the {{userbox}} template within that user template made the text in the left hand box bold. Now, it is already bad enough when it isn't bold, especially for those who would use odd UTC codes, such as UTC+10:30. If that were entered into the left hand box in bold, it would nearly take up half the space of the complete box. If it were not bolded, it would still take up a lot of space, but not as much. For this application, bold does not work in the left hand box. Actually, in a lot of user templates it wouldn't work. It just looks really bad. - LA @ 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we could just make it id-s = 12pt (instead of the default 14pt); that would make it even slightly smaller then the current code. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Award

Congrats! Type 40 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Doctor Who Award
		For your work on Doctor Who articles! Type 40 (talk)21:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Astrid AfD

Hi; just to let you know that I asked for more views on AN about your (very) early closure of the Peth deletion "discussion" :-) I'm genuinely not sure of the rules here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well OK. Let's see what others have to say. My main reason is that in order for there to be a discussion about deletion, there should be at least a reason given to delete. There wasn't and you basically suggested a merge. Plus there was a measure of WP:SNOW, as the article is currently a Good Article nominee. — Edokter • Talk • 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see your point; as I understood it though, the Good Article system is a measure of article quality in terms of written communication. I could write a very good article on the mug from which I drink my tea, but it wouldn't pass WP:NOTE... Anyway, we'll see! —TreasuryTag—t—c

If it wouldn't pass notability, it certainly wouldn't pass GA status; Notability is defenitely a requirement for GA status. Maybe an unwritten one, but GAs are expected to pass all guidelines. — Edokter • Talk • 18:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

Hi, there's a discussion at the village pump mentioning your actions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vortis (Doctor Who), specifically about using rollback to revert good-faith edits. Darkspots (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actor First

Sorry, I'll undo my mistakes now, much thanks.--Wiggs (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've finished off the New Who ones thanks for doing so many, I've done some on Classic so I'll have to re-do those too.--Wiggs (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Validation

"line-height: 1;" not validating is a known bug in the CSS validator and is valid CSS. —Random832 (contribs) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a navbox or template that it causes alignment problems in? —Random832 (contribs) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What I notice is that paragraph spacing becomes virtually zero. And in navbox, the v-d-e links in the header cling to the top instead of centering vertically, the contents within the navbox is spaced to tightly together, and table cells shrink drastically in height. This might be intended, but it becomes less easier to read. Maybe the value is just too small. In any case, this should be tested, and then be implemented in monobook/main.css instead, as that is where line-height for these elements are initially declared; one should generally not override these in monobook.css (or common.css). — Edokter • Talk • 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen any more issues btw since the last update? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What update are we talking about? If it is <sup>/<sub> line-height being set to 1em, then no, that seems fine now. — Edokter • Talk • 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Partners in Crime image

That bleddy image has been removed again. What's the plan? Restore, protect or ANI, perhaps? It's going to turn into a massive fiasco unless something drastic is done IMO. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're good for now. I've pointed Matthew to WP:FUR if he insists. — Edokter • Talk • 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected with the image and the discussion is in Fair use review now, its going to be like last year Edo.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Torchwood-stub}}

Hi! In responce to your message at my user talk:

I have removed the non-free images from the {{Torchwood-stub}} page, as these are only allowed in article space. Please do not re-add them. — Edokter • Talk • 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the picture with the television screen with the British Flag: is not associated with the Torchwood Institude or the Torchwood show. The {{DoctorWho-stub}}'s Picture of the TARDIS: is related to the show and is a much better choice. Please find a better related free image for this stub. Thanks, Troop350 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a general stub image. The TARDIS image is not copyrighted, but the Torchwood logo is. That is why it cannot be used. If I knew of a better image, I certainly would have used that. — Edokter • Talk • 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How about the Torchwood Title Sequence: image:Torchwoodtitle.jpg? 81.86.68.253 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is copyrighted as well. Only GFDL and other free-licensed images may be used outside article-space. — Edokter • Talk • 19:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This image image:Time_mag.JPG shows that is copyright and belongs to Time corp. Troop350 81.86.68.253 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it... I created the T myself, using a different font. And while the Time logo may be trademarked, it cannot be copyrighted due to consisting only of a font. I do notice your use of several company logos that are copyrighted, on your userpage; I suggest you remove those as non-free images may not be used outside article space. — Edokter • Talk • 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some user use the "Torchwood" T image:Torchwood_logo.svg in their user boxes. Troop350 81.86.68.253 (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is not allowed. Also, please don't put copyrighted in-line image on my talk page; link them by using a colon (:) in front of the link. — Edokter • Talk • 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Editabuselinks

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AEditabuselinks&diff=201544902&oldid=201538796

Hi. I find bullets in templates became pretty distracting especially when browsing in smaller windows or on smaller screens (laptops), so would there be a problem retaining the bold-middot ones? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the middle bullets only produce single-pixel dots which are hardly distinguishable and make it hard to seperate the links. Can we bring this to the template talk page? — Edokter • Talk • 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fragments

Hi, I noticed you replaced the image I'd uploaded for "Fragments". It's not the same moment as I'd captured. Just a few frames on and Rhys moves into view behind Jack. The caption currently reflects this. Could you redo the image just a few frames later? It makes for a better image having more characters in shot. Thanks. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's a black line along the bottom that needs cropping off the current image. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is the best I could do without blurring out the holograms too much. I also fixed the bottom line. — Edokter • Talk • 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Looks great. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive protection

This protection [5] of a Dr Who episode article is admin abuse, pure and simple. You are a party to this issue, you are involved, in over your head. I will definitely not tolerate you using your admin powers to protect non-free images on Dr Who episodes. I am now going to remove that image again. It is clearly not used for any reasonable fair-use purpose - the scene it depicts isn't even mentioned in the text, and even if it was, the image contains nothing that could not easily be conveyed in words (if it is at all crucial to the understanding of the epsisode anyway, which I doubt). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The images don't concern me, the edit warring was out of line. I have protected 5 articles, three of which without the image, so DO NOT accuse me of being a party to your dispute. There is always fair-use review is someone disputes your removal. Edit warring is wrong, no matter what. — Edokter • Talk • 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I think I should draw your attention to this; deal with it as you wish. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Already seen it (see above). — Edokter • Talk • 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; sorry. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. — Edokter • Talk • 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Hi; my implication with that was that it implies Billie Piper is returning. Actors departing from Who has been shown to be a hot issue in the past (Christopher Eccleston etc.!) and I thought that it was best to remove such info straight away. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Series 4 page

How does it look? I thought I'd better create it because, come July, those sections will have been removed for not being date relevant any more. Might also help if we go for a featured top too. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK. I hope it doesn's make List of Doctor Who serials obsolete though. You may remember that I opposed Torchwood (series 1) quite heavily for that reason, and I hate the {{Episode list}} template with a passion. :) — Edokter • Talk • 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about expanding the lists to Doctor Who (First Doctor), Doctor Who (Second Doctor), then go along with (series 1), (series 2), etc. (because of the information going down with time). We'd end up with something like List of The Simpsons episodes or List of Lost episodes being barebones (like the current DW list), and the spinout pages being like The Simpsons (season 8) or Lost (season 2). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. That is a big project. Seeing as other TV project follow the same scheme, I'd say it is a good idea, albeit requiring more looking after. Is there enough information available (beside plot summaries) to fill out those series 1-3 (not mo mention the classic series)? And could we possibly not use {{episode list}}? — Edokter • Talk • 21:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what do you think about coloring the main list table as in List of Torchwood episodes? — Edokter • Talk • 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't my idea though... Do you think the DW list could benefit from it? — Edokter • Talk • 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find 30 different colours, sure (or ten). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Got six sofar... — Edokter • Talk • 22:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Formatting nav box

Do you know how to format a nav box, i.e. the nav box in an article will not be collapsed always, the nav box will be always fully displayed. I am trying to format the Template:Bridges in Slovenia for the article Dragon Bridge, so that the nav box is always displayed fully, not condensed, but the format is not working. This is the general format I know for nav boxes. But this is not working. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to put the state = show parameter in the template itself, not in the article where the template is. But it would make the template expand on all article that use the template. If you want to control the template per article, you have to put the following in the template: | state = {{{state|autocollapse}}}

Then you can use the state parameter in articles as well. — Edokter • Talk • 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it worked. Thank you very much. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:pp-meta

I've reverted your recent undo to Template:Pp-meta. The template really never should've been using id="administrator" and keeping the template "broken" instead of fixing the JS seems rather silly. I've updated MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.js to detect the "protected-icon" id instead of id="administrator". That should fix the issue. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this change implemented in all protection templates, like pp-template? Otherwise, your fix to the gadget broke more then it fixes. I've added both id's to the js for now. — Edokter • Talk • 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah. Why the hell do we have pp-meta if pp-template doesn't even use it? I thought the whole point of a meta template was to unify everything. Grr... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, pp-template itself seems to be used as a meta template; and {{pp-semi-template}} and {{Pp-semi-usertalk}} don't use pp-meta (or pp-template) either. It's a bit of a mess. — Edokter • Talk • 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on improving pp-meta; in the meantime, I've updated the ids of the other protection templates, though it looks like the fix I originally wanted to the gadget JS has gone through. :) Nihiltres^{t.l} 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll adjust the gadget once more to detect 'protection-icon' only (that should speed it up a bit). — Edokter • Talk • 18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

	The Space-Time Telegraph
	The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter
	Issue 1	March 2008
Project News We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002. One editor has left the project: StuartDD. The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33. Articles of note New featured articles None New featured article candidates Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC) New good articles Dalek (Doctor Who episode) Astrid Peth Delisted articles None Proposals A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here. A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here. A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here. News The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope. The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April. For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

Torchwood article

Protecting it seems a little extreme - there's no real evidence of edit warring. Shouldn't semi-protection be tried first? There's a small corrective edit I've spotted and want to make ("aired" is grammatically wrong in the International Broadcasts section). Stephenb (Talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a small editwar, but I've unprotected it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Stephenb (Talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi, sorry, probably addressing this to the wrong person in the wrong way, but perhaps you can point me in the right direction. On page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Travian (Revenue Links section) you can see a discussion with user Ko2007 where he admits to abusing his editing rights and trying to earn money from posting referral links to the Travian article, despite being asked to stop he openly refuses to stop.

Can you help with this? Or point me in the right direction?

Thanks Jasonfward (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also some additional information on my talk page talk Jasonfward (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a spam warning. If he continues, you can report the editor on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, or give me a yell. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jasonfward (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

BSG titles

Got them from BSG's scheduler while looking up the DW airdates. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Got a link? — Edokter • Talk • 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[6] and every Friday thereafter. "Six of One" is also reffed in the banner. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah OK... Web-editor's error perhaps? Gramatically it doesn't make any sense. Shall we wait until the episode's official page become available? Also, "The Hub" and "Revelations" were sourced (in ref [3]). And where do all these short synopsis descriptions come from? — Edokter • Talk • 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:TardisIndexFile

Please stop edit warring with this template. First, the link is internal as Wikia is a sister site; it is run by the WikeMedia Foundation, so there is no misleading involved. Why would the wikiasite: prefix exsist otherwise. Second, a revert should always be marked as a minor edit; please refrain from acusing my af "abusing" it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Please read our Wikia article. Wikia is not a sister site, nor is it run by the Wikimedia Foundation (a non-profit organization). It's an independent, for-profit venture operated by Wikia, Incorporated (a separate company co-founded by Jimmy Wales).

Like various interwiki links to non-Wikimedia wikis, the "wikiasite" prefix exists in the MediaWiki software (used by many sites with no connection to Wikimedia or Wikia) as a matter of technical convenience, not as a policy-based decision by the Wikimedia Foundation.

2. No, the reversion of an intentional, good-faith edit usually shouldn't be labeled "minor." (I haven't the foggiest idea of what led you to believe that. It certainly wasn't anything on the page to which you linked.) I've already referred you to Help:Minor edit, on which it's explained that "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

No offense, but I'm taken aback by the fact that an administrator could be under the above misconceptions. —David Levy 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edokter is mistaken about the sister site thing, but I must clear up something else for you, David. These templates are all supposed to use the interwiki link format, but were temporarily switched to full links when something had broken on Wikia's servers. We just forgot to change them back. There's no real meaning behind it, nor is there any policy that says you must do one or the other. It's a purely technical thing. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the above, and it has no bearing on my edits. I also removed the "plainlinks" class from some of these templates, as there is no valid reason to exclude the external link icon.

This was discussed somewhere a while back (long before these templates were created). As was noted at the time, the existence of an interwiki prefix (and this applies to the "wikiasite" prefix as well) does not mean that such sites have any special status that sets them apart from other sites; it's merely a means of making it more convenient for people to link to them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia uses external link icons when linking to external sites. That we possess the technical capability to avoid doing this is irrelevant. We can easily do this with any link (via the aforementioned "plainlinks" class), but that doesn't mean that we should.

On the English Wikipedia, it's widely understood that external links (those to non-Wikimedia projects) bear the icon and that those lacking the icon are internal (links to Wikimedia projects). In this case, these templates have been somewhat controversial. This is due to the concern that the linked sites might be mistaken for sister projects, so making the links appear internal is ill-advised. —David Levy 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You want an icon to show that it's an EL, even if it's in the EL section of the page? Fine, but what about just adding the EL icon manually, instead of changing the link? Does anything change if that icon is there or not? No. Do I care if it's there or not? No. The m:interwiki map isn't just there for kicks, and it's actually meant to be used, and for good reason. If it makes you feel better then I'll add the EL icon manually to the templates. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. I don't care about the technical method used to display the links; I merely want to make it as clear as possible that these aren't Wikimedia sites. —David Levy 06:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Shweet. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikia and Wikimedia do have a connection. Adding the icon manually is equally convulted; why not just add the link in the most convenient method available, and not resort to any weird external link construct or extra images? I am trying to keep everyting as simple as possible and the two of you are not helping; roughly half (if not more) wikia linkboxes are broken due to the 'wikia:' links not working anymore. Whenever I come accross any of those, I intend to fix them, and do so in a foolproof way. So no, I'm not happy. That icon suggests it is an external link, while in truth it is a valid wikilink. — Edokter • Talk • 09:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're complaining about. The above solution breaks nothing and serves an important purpose. I don't know what you mean by "valid wikilink" or what "connection" between Wikimedia and Wikia you believe justifies referring to them as "sister sites." (The fact that Wikia was founded by people affiliated with Wikimedia?)

Again, Wikia is a separate company that is not "run by the Wikimedia Foundation." This should made be clear to readers (who don't care about what type of code is used or how this impacts what they see). Why do you object to that? —David Levy 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It has shown that link without an icon for years, and Wikia is (was) regarded as an informal sister project, as it was founded by Jimbo. That is one of the reason the 'wikia:' interwiki map existed in the first place. However, I'll drop the icon subject. — Edokter • Talk • 16:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad to hear it. Just for the record, I'll direct your attention to the interwiki map. Note that my friend's (non-Wikia) wiki is on that list, and I assure you that he isn't named Jimbo and the wiki isn't regarded as an informal sister project.  :-)

On an unrelated note, what is the status of the "minor edit" issue? —David Levy 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, not worth bickering about. Reading WP:MINOR again, I may have erred on the revert/dispute part, but it's just a little "m" I myself usually ignore. Calling it prone to abuse is overrating it's purpose. — Edokter • Talk • 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just a little "m." When a user hides minor edits (via the "Hide minor edits" link) on his/her watchlist or the recent changes list, edits labeled "minor" are omitted.

In other words, while this presumably wasn't your intention, you were partially hiding your reversions from review. That's why "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." —David Levy 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. — Edokter • Talk • 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —David Levy 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of Time (Torchwood)

So elucidating an actual point of continuity in a section titled "Continuity" is speculation, whereas some meaningless jabber about them getting the day of the week wrong isn't? -Seriously hacked off (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfc

Has the dispute that led to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua been resolved? I am thinking of archiving this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it's stale. But you can go ahead and archive it. — Edokter • Talk • 14:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop the edit war right now

We don't need to edit war at Smith and Jones (Doctor Who). Discuss it on the talk page. If we can not reach amicable agreement there, THEN the right course of action might be taking it to Wikipedia:Fair use review. But, let's TALK first rather than simply revert. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Line-height.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Line-height.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. —PNG crusade bot ^(feedback) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(replying to User talk:Remember the dot#Image:Line-height.gif) - It sets a good example when we consistently use the PNG format over the GIF format for still images. This translates into users using the appropriate format when uploading less trivial images. Why do you feel so strongly about using the GIF instead of the PNG? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not particularly opposed to PNG, but crusading against GIF images is not productive either. I am just more accustommed to GIF for simple images, for which it is quite adequate. GIF should not be treated as a pariah. In this partucular case, I had enough stress to endure (see the history of the original image). If editors don't want their uploads converted, that should be respected. — Edokter • Talk • 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

hi this is whomania why did you change my edits on Journeys End? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whomania (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the added information was totally unencyclopedic and unsouced. Wikipedia can only contain information that can be verified using [[WP:RS|reliable sources] (such as the BBC). — Edokter • Talk • 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television

Hi, I noticed the television infobox looks different. My opinion is that it would look better if the infobox was a bit bigger to make it easier to read, because it is much smaller now than what it was, and most people are used to the big-style writing of the infobox. Thereforem my opinion is that the infobox should be changed back to the old-style. Cheers, --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I did some extensive testing. The box you see now, is, and has always been, the intended font size; Internet Eplorer however, rendered it in a slightly larger font-size. The change was done to make IE behave like ohter browser, like Firefox. If you would like to propose a larger font, feel free to bring it up on the talk page of the template. — Edokter • Talk • 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Planet of the Ood

Just a heads up: I'll be mostly inactive for the next few hours while I catch up on Galactica and get information from Confidential and the podcast. Hopefully I should have the article done up for Turn Left midnight and put on DYK. And yeah, I am trying to get a Doctor Who (series 4) featured topic ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for warning; I'll have to catch up on those as well as soon as I get home. Re. the link in the infobox, Should we link to the Series page then instead of the serials list? Or both? — Edokter • Talk • 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Rosetyler2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosetyler2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Please do not remove tags such as you did to Image:Rosetyler2.jpg unless you have resolved the underlying problems. In this case, you must provide a source and a detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See your talk. — Edokter • Talk • 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 15 minutes to give you a chance to read WP:IUP and because you have continued to remove the tag noting that the image has no source, without providing the source. --Yamla (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to unblock you. I think that was uncalled for. However, you must provide a source before removing the no-source tag. --Yamla (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock me

{{unblock|Where HELL does Yamla get off blocking me while trying to repair image vandalism and replacing the images to their proper pages?}}
You are already unblocked, as noted above. Please refrain from removing the no-source tag from the image until you provide the source. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am too steamed right now... you are advised to stay away from that image at this point. — Edokter • Talk • 22:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I will stay away. I have, however, brought this matter (your continued removal of the no-source tag without providing the mandatory source) on WP:ANI. --Yamla (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have removed your autoblock. As Yamla said, your main block has already been removed. You should be good to go. Please take a deep breath and count to 10. --B (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice that you are an admin - just saw the request in CAT:RFU. You were actually good to go without me doing anything. ;) --B (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway... I know it is not done unblocking yourself, hence the unblock template. — Edokter • Talk • 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Travian

Hi Edokter, can you take a look at this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stargate001 he's already been warned once for link spamming the Travian article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travian and has done it again today. Thanks Jason

Congratulations!

		The Original Barnstar
		Since you've already been given the Doctor Who WikiProject Award, I hereby grant you the Original Barnstar in recognition of your work bringing Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) up to Featured Article standard. Well done! — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. But thruth be told... I hardly worked on that article; all the credits should got to Will. — Edokter • Talk • 10:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Edit warring

Your warning is incorrect. This is not edit warring, this is me protecting consensus! In my first edit summary I asked User:WebHamster to join the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Television#Flag_usage. He ignored me! Thats his problem, NOT mine. Thank you TheProf - T / C 13:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have warned WebHamster as well. The consensus you refer to, namely the template's talk page, has no bearing on articles where the template is being used; it does not even fall within the scope of that template. WT:FLAG would be a more proper venue. — Edokter • Talk • 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Then i suggest you go to Template_talk:Infobox_Television#Flag_usage and tell them that! Have a nice day :-) TheProf - T / C 14:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop by and say that you seem a little "trigger happy" with using "full protection" for changes to certain articles... I know it's a judgement call, but the "war" appeared to have been taken to discussion before the point of protection, and a real edit war between users did not appear to be taking place. So, by enforcing no edits to an article that you often edit yourself, you perhaps ought to be careful WP:OWN. Stephenb (Talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Planet of the Ood screenshot

Just as a friendly request... can you elaborate on the fair use rationale a bit? Like, say how it's important to the episode as a whole and its theme of slavery (you can see the cage's bar in the screenshot). Less chance of the cry of "decorative!" Sceptre ^(talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try... — Edokter • Talk • 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood

It's always been my opinion that we talk about British programmes in "series", whereas the Amerikins use "season". Any ideas? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well. Why'd you ask? Never mind, I see. — Edokter • Talk • 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I missed something? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a few... — Edokter • Talk • 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as we're consistent thoughout. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Incident

You may want to see the topic relating to the incident that caused those templates to be protected. But if you have seen it already, ah well, I'm sure many are watchlisting those templates now.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I already watched all of them... but it happend in the middle of night for me. I just don't think protecting all the templates 'just to be safe' isn't the way to go; it just screams WP:BEANS. — Edokter • Talk • 08:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright fair point. I'm glad to see how fast our response time was though :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

As a plain old ordinary editor who has been tweaking the IncidentsHeader template, it royally pissed me off that it got full-protected "just to be safe". Admins who think it's okay to go around full-protecting things just because they're frequently used are only taking away from the power of collaborative editing. I'm sick of complaining about it, going through the same old argument again and again, always feeling like I brought a knife to a gunfight, so I didn't say anything this time. I'm very glad someone had the good sense to revert this. May the admin body learn from your example. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:40, 29 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, Edokter. Is there any particular reason you deleted the redirects Doctor Who (Enemy Within) and Doctor Who (1996 TV movie)? Those were rejected names used in earlier discussion of how to name the TVM article, and I think they were useful redirects. I think that it's not unreasonable to think that an editor might type one of those in the search box, especially the (1996 TV movie) one. Did I miss a discussion about these redirects? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really... This is just one of my cleanup runs. I checked those redirects for incoming links, and they all had none (from article space), so they were pretty useless. The chance of anyone typing in one of those terms is also pretty much zero. There are still the redirects Doctor Who (film), Enemy Within (film) and Enemy Within (Doctor Who), as well as the disambiguation page at Doctor Who (disambiguation), which is linked right at the top of Doctor Who, so anyone wanting to find the movie will get there prety quick. I hope this clears it up a bit. — Edokter • Talk • 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I was subconsciously remembering that the article had been at those two titles for a while in 2005 and early 2006. (See [7], and several rounds of discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (1996 film)/Archive 1.) I suppose the only argument for Doctor Who (Enemy Within) would be if some off-wiki source linked to the article during the six months or so it had that title — but I can still imagine someone with a vague familiarity with Wikipedia naming conventions trying "Doctor Who (1996 TV movie)", since it's widely known as "the TV movie" in fan circles and people might not know that Wikipedia treats TV movies as films. I dunno — I guess since redirects are cheap I tend to leave them alone, but it's not a big deal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Template thanks

Hi, I cannot for the life of me remember if I thanked you for fixing Template:Infobox Paris metro (you centered the image), which was driving me insane. Regardless, I was looking at the template today and noticing how nice and formatted it looked and wanted to send to you my appreciation (seriously, I tried to fix that thing for about 1 week straight). Lazulilasher (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was some time ago, and someone else thanked me before (see my talk archive, or maybe that was you?). Anyway, glad to be of help. — Edokter • Talk • 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags

It is not up to WP:MOSFLAG *or* template talkpage consensus; projects can decide for themselves

I thought this was a project for everyone to edit. If no one edits for fear of reverts, the project would stand still and therefor not deside for itsself. CJ2005B (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course anyone can edit, and anyone can revert. Consensus however, is the ultimate guideline. However, you applied the WP:MOSFLAG guideline as if it were policy in the midst of a debate concerning the use of flags in infoboxes. That is always a bad idea. — Edokter • Talk • 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DW infobox

Yeah, I did that to stop the rehashed debate about this (the fourth in a month), and it always ends up the picture is removed... if an image is needed pre-broadcast, we can put it outside the lede. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of images... can't he drop the WP:STICK? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Software I have developed

Yes my software is able to do that. But I would also point out that there is a major security leak in one of your servers as my program was able to tap on the door and say hey you know me dont you and the server let it in. Computermadgeek (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hath image - what?!

"It's a very old magazine scan of some aliens that would not in the least look like the ones appearing in this episode." What on Earth are you talking about?! It's from this month's "Doctor Who Magazine" of the aliens from this episode. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a realy old magazine, probably due to scanning at high resulution. And the source doesn't indicate what issue it was from. — Edokter • Talk • 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"some aliens that would not in the least look like the ones appearing in this episode" - what sort of idiot do you take me for? Why would I upload an image of aliens that wouldn't be in the episode? I think an apology for accusing me of something utterly absurd is due, tbh. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How was I supposed to know the picture was from this month's issue? — Edokter • Talk • 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

When it was scanned from was totally irrelevant - if it showed the Hath, as I said it did (and you should know by now that I'm honest about such things!) then why does the age matter? And please tell me what you meant by the comment: "some aliens that would not in the least look like the ones appearing in this episode". —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I truly believed that it was a 20+ year old scan. You know what you uploaded, but if you don't indicate the exact source, no-one else knows where the image came from. — Edokter • Talk • 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But why would the thought come into your head (and note the link there) that I would upload a speculative image, after all my efforts to keep such crap out of articles?! It's very strange, I'm still staggered that you'd think I'd do such a thing.

Now, do you think it meets the NFCC, and where can I revert the code-changes so as to insert the image and establish a consensus? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

At no time did I think you would add anything speculative. If I implied that, then I apologise, but having only the image to go by (not the uploader), I thought it was an old image. It only goes to show why sourcing is so important. As for the code change, you should talk to Sceptre. — Edokter • Talk • 16:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't merely imply it, you specifically said, and I quote: ...some aliens that would not in the least look like the ones appearing in this episode. That implies that I uploaded an image of aliens that weren't actually in the episode. Before saying things like that, it's probably worth checking the uploader. As it is, I've added the image to the main page, and I'll wait for Matthew to remove it before going to FUR. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Editabuselinks

Regarding [8]. Which is why every edit I make is reverted? Come on, Edokter, please stop reverting every edit made to the template. Anthøny 22:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Truth is, that template is already suffering from bloat, so each addition should have consensus. But the warning box was overkill (and a bit pointy). Usefull edits are not reverted, and the thing has a talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

TDD image

The rationale includes the Ood! Plus, I'm not sure it meets the NFCC :-( —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops... fixed. Do you have a better suggestion for the screenshot? — Edokter • Talk • 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the one of the Hath with the gun was OK, but Matthew thought otherwise, naturally. The thing is, your one can easily be described with words: "they stand next to a glass sphere containing a glowing substance." —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to look at it from the viewpoint of the reader who knows nothing. It is a key element in the plot though, I think it will stand. — Edokter • Talk • 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad Wolf

_ What if sydhappyguy is Russell T Davies creation for Bad Wolf? _ I'd love to discuss. sydhappyguy@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydhappyguy (talk • contribs) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Planet of the Ood stellar map

The diagram itself is not speculation but a real piece of continuity. The scene tells us by the 43rd century the human race is spread over three galaxies, which deserves to be noted in the continuity section of this episode, if not elsewhere as well. Feel free to make your own summary of this. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do supply screen caps, how about one of the stellar map? MartinSFSA (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the current one is sufficient. A galactic map wouldn't add much to the article. — Edokter • Talk • 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Howabout the Chronology of the Doctor Who Universe article? MartinSFSA (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't add much there either; It would be a non-free image, which are restricted to "minimal use". — Edokter • Talk • 14:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell I'm still interested in it; I'm going to contact the BBC about publishing it. MartinSFSA (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cass Ole and such

The photos of Cass Ole are in danger of being tossed for lack of fair use rationale. I restored one, but didn't have time to fix the rationale. I know you patrol these articles, perhaps you can run over and fix the photo trouble? (Don't know if you've had to do a Fair Use Rationale before, but the one I did for Khemosabi has held so far if you want to swipe an example). Good luck. Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That particular image was tagged by a bot because it was missing a link to Cass Ole; that I have fixed, so the bots should be happy. — Edokter • Talk • 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Resolved

Hmm, that's a shame. Considering that it is a single word, punctuating it looks very peculiar. Is there any way it could be { display: none; } on screen? If not, could there at least be a comment explaining why it is necessary? Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole thread about it on the talk page. I don't think display:none would work either, as that would hide it for screen readers as well. — Edokter • Talk • 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a thread on the talk page so far as I can see... I did look before editing. I'm surprised you can't adjust it with media="aural" or whatever it's supposed to be -- I guess that screenreaders don't tend to implement that? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's here. I think it's a bit overkill to use media types to hide a single pixel dot. — Edokter • Talk • 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. However, what that section says is that it is only necessary to have the punctuation if there is text that follows. I would suggest something like:

<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Resolved{{#if: {{{1|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}}| : }} </span>{{#if: {{{1|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}}|<span style="font-size: 85%;">{{{1}}}</span>}}</div>

Which would put a colon (grammatically preferable) in place only if there is a parameter provided. What do you think? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not such a good idea; there is always text behind this template (html wise), even if it starts on the next line. So readers would still see "Resolved" as part of the following text. The full-stop is the only reliable way of making text readers behave. — Edokter • Talk • 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely screenreaders take notice of paragraph breaks... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't know, but I'm not relying on it. — Edokter • Talk • 21:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the transparency problem.

I've copied the monobook script to my monobook, and it's working! The should have just implemented to fix on nl.wiki, then it would wordk for readers as well. Thanks again.

Vriendelijke groeten, 213.10.202.180 (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (Sir Iain)

No pro... geen probleem! — Edokter • Talk • 10:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Darbyshire composer...

Thanks, that's kind of what I'm after. But Darbyshire didn't arrange the Howell, Glynn, McCulloch, Debney or Gold versions.MartinSFSA (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading Doctor Who theme music, Delia did add some music to the piece, which is why Ron wanted to have her credited as well. — Edokter • Talk • 12:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's back to saying she was an uncredited composer, not reflected in the text or verifiable. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica)

Are you sure about this? I think unnecessary indexation should be avoided (couldn't for the life of me find anything about indexation in the MoS, though). WP:NAME says It is possible to create two non-redirect pages with the same name but different capitalization. If this arises, a disambiguation link should always be placed at the top of both pages, linking either to a dedicated disambiguation page or to the other article. dorftrottel (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it is possible, but I find such constructs terribly confusing for pepole that don't know that titles are case-sensitive. So I prefer to avoid those situations. — Edokter • Talk • 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. I was a little confused by the edit summary though, as it seemed to indicate policy ('are to be avoided') rather than your personal judgment (with which I agree, btw). dorftrottel (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrt this: It's not original research as in 'original synthesis'. It's simply an information taken directly from the primary sources. dorftrottel (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it has not been established that Tigh is the father (Remember Baltar?), so it is an assumption at best, and being entirely in-universe, not very encyclopedic information. — Edokter • Talk • 14:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Duh! You're absolutely right, might have been Baltar. I made the old mistake of trusting the skin job... dorftrottel (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The pregnancy is recent enough that Caprica-Six is not showing as yet, and it is known that Baltar has not had recent access to her. The context of Adama's specific notation that Tigh turns off the video monitoring when with Caprica-Six makes it clear that this is extraordinarily unusual, that nobody else of the few who have access to her cell does it. Ergo, the gestating child is Tigh's. -- Davidkevin (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fail NFCC

As per your comment here, might I trouble you to point out which criteria of NFCC they fail and what about the formatting is incorrect? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They all show only a character, not an event in the episode (with the exception of one). They;re also not in the right aspect ration (16:9) to be considered a screenshot. — Edokter • Talk • 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, an image can always be manipulated, E.

On a side note, have you been following the conversation I've been having over at Troikoalogo's talk page? It would seem that being new, he might not have a firm grasp on what our image policy entails. What would you now advise as a course of action? Clearly, he isn't really willing (or isn't able) to iterate what a pedestal image should be. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth

I had already created the page at around 1pm today. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed, but I had a placeholder. I've merged the histories of the pages though. — Edokter • Talk • 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As all other upcoming episodes are semi protected and as IPs keep adding rumors, do you think you could semi-protect that article as well? --SoWhy ^Talk 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite right... I've semi-protected it. — Edokter • Talk • 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably would be a good idea for Midnight (Doctor Who) as well, it gets a lot of rumor-edits as well... --SoWhy ^Talk 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:CITVLogo1998.png

Thankyou Fasach Nua (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

BSG episodes

I've undone your re-addition of the survivor count. Please present a reliable, third-party source to verify its relevance. dorftrottel (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but... WHAT??? Each episode has the survivor count; it is the red line that holds the entire series together. Further... I do not need to reference "relevance", you are seriousle confusing some of our policies. — Edokter • Talk • 10:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Red line? The survivor count? Here I was thinking that the great scripts, directing, cinematography, acting and overall production value did that. Stupid me. But ok, if it's the red line red line that holds the entire series together, a reliable, third-party source to back up that claim shouldn't be hard to find. Since you are the one who wants it in the article due to its alleged major relevance, the burden of proof does indeed rest with you. dorftrottel (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ... I follow WP:BRD; bold, revert, discuss. I do not have to prove anything. Plotwise the series is based on survivors, I was not talking about the notability of the series itself. — Edokter • Talk • 11:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hm. You claim that I'm confusing policy, yet you cite an essay as the basis of what you're doing. See e.g. WP:V#Burden of evidence. Including the survivor count as a plot element in those specific episodes is most certainly inadequate, because it isn't mentioned at all in the plot of those episodes. Including it by simply mentioning it is absolutely laughable no matter what. You have to at least qualify its inclusion by forming one coherent English sentence around it. If you cannot do that, you should consider the possibility that it is because the survivor count is utterly irrelevant for that episode. And no, you're not discussing (as in BRD). You're just claiming that I'm wrong and unable to understand and apply policy. dorftrottel (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot elements are satisfied by primary sources per WP:FICTION, and if you watched closely (presuming you've watched the episode), right at the end of the opening credits, " 39,663 survivors" is displayed in bold. That takes care of the verifiability. — Edokter • Talk • 11:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean by 'you're not discussing'. Ok, fuckit, have your way. You're completely wrong on all counts, but have your way. dorftrottel (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Revelations

Can you keep an eye on the article? People aren't accepting that the ruins are a) irradiated, b) of a developed city, or c) on Earth. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor River Song

I created an article about Professor River Song that was deleted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Rogue_Penguin , I feel unjustly. His whole argument is that there is not enough about her to warrant an article. However, I feel that once the article is reverted back into existence, it will rapidly fill up with facts. Take for example, the character Jenny, who so far has only been in one episode but has her own page. Can you please let me know what you think? (Wordforge (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

I'll give it a chance, but no promises. The article does lacks enough information for a full article; Jenny has a lot more information, partly because of a wealth of real-world information. That is the biggest problem with River Song. PS. I did move the article to River Song (Doctor Who); artile titles should not have a person's personal title in them. — Edokter • Talk • 22:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood Link

Just to inform you I have asked about the use of such links as sources in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard .I am not trying to add back the link but I wish for the issue to be clarified .Garda40 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. — Edokter • Talk • 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Instruction creep

I have reverted an attempt to tag WP:SOSUMI as a guideline. Since I am not getting along well with Gmaxwell, I was hoping you might speak to him. It is customary that essays, even those that restate policies/guidelines, must seek a new consensus before they can be promoted. We've been through this before with WP:ATT, I see no reason why this is any different. I took this action due to the fact that there was clearly no consensus on NFCC talk that this essay is needed as a guideline. Thanks in advance! --Dragon695 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. I agree that it shouldn't be promoted to a guideline without due consensus. I don't think he'll repeat it though, seeing his edit summary of "what happens if I do this?". — Edokter • Talk • 17:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just talked to him and put forth my objection. I guess I'm getting paranoid... --Dragon695 (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who and Bert's dancing

I was wondering if you knew something I didn't.....--Rodhullandemu 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh :) No, I just hit rollback too soon without checking who made the last edit... — Edokter • Talk • 17:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they should be merged

I can see the discussion in the DH wikiproject going sideways because there are too many threads discussing the same thing. Perhaps they should be merged or restarted in a single section. My reply in an earlier section answers every question you have asked of me. I would do it, but since I am apparently considered to be the Guy Who Wants to Destroy the DH Wikiproject, maybe you should do it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I missed that one. I'll merge the threads. — Edokter • Talk • 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, on second thought, maybe the main points of all of them should be coalesced, instead of smooshed together. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you might have presented a reply that was a bit less of an unpleasant characterization, Edokter? I certainly made no speculative assessments of your resistance to the ideas I presented. You're an admin; maybe set a better example? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR excitement

Hello Edokter. You're mentioned in this 3RR report. I believe the discussion's being forwarded to WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stolen_Earth_gang.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stolen_Earth_gang.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The deletion button is not a toy, no my boy

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion is the place to go if you don't personally like a choice of redirect. The speedy deletion criteria are not reasons to abuse your delete button, not even for redirects. --Wurtzel (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard headers

You might have considered beginning the discussion by telling me why you disagree with my changes. If nobody disagrees, then in fact it does not need any more discussion. A revert should always be accompanied by a note explaining in concrete terms why it needed reverting: I'm afraid "not discussed enough" won't do the trick. Remember Wikipedia:Be bold. What are your complaints? — Dan | talk 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually, it is the change that requires consensus. The headers have evolved to it's current form over the course of months; see the header talk page. Your edit basically threw all that work away and removed some essential information. Please make your case it the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 18:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, the best way to find consensus is to make a change, see what people find wrong with it, and amend it accordingly. I'll say again: remember Wikipedia:Be bold. Since you're the only one who is interested so far, I'll make a case to you. The previous version was so large as to discourage anyone from reading it. The new one is friendlier, shorter, and less officious-looking. All the important information is there, and if I missed some I invite you to tell me what I've missed, and help me improve these templates. They really need it. — Dan | talk 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Rose" Link to Series 1

I'm not sure what you mean by: "Series" already link to the serials page through the series_link parameter. When I click on the link it does not navigate to the list of serials like the other episode articles but to the main article for series 1. Gardner.DJ (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Look to the left; you'll see that "Series" in the left column is a link. — Edokter • Talk • 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. The left link goes to the list of serials and the right link to the article for that specific series/season. Is this the format for all episode info boxes? If so, I think many of the other episode articles need to be changed to match this format.

Yes, that is the intention, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Feel free though... — Edokter • Talk • 10:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made the change on series 1 and 2 episodes. I will probably change series 3 and 4 episodes tomorrow. Gardner.DJ (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just did Series 3 & 4. — Edokter • Talk • 11:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth - semi?

Hey, considering that The Stolen Earth will air on Saturday and there have been multiple reverts for speculation added by IPs, could you maybe semi-protect it like we always had it with future episodes? --SoWhy ^Talk 10:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WQ-Links?

Hey, please explain to me, why it is wrong to link to the sections of the Tenth Doctor article on Wikiquote? It makes it much easier to locate the quotes in that huge article and I have no idea, why that is a bad thing. --SoWhy ^Talk 16:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Pages on off-Wiki sites tend to change, for instance, because they are so large), causing the section links to break. Since we have no control over it (from here), linking to section is generally a bad idea. — Edokter • Talk • 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does it make that a bad idea? If the section heading is changed there, which has not happened for a long time on that article, the link will just go to the Tenth Doctor article there and thus still work fine. So where does it say, we should not link to sections? --SoWhy ^Talk 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say anywhere specifically. You can re-add them, but you'd have to do all new episodes (from Rose onward) for consistency. — Edokter • Talk • 20:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to initiate conversation, then. :)

I mean, more thant he discussion that has already taken place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Codes for Series Four of Doctor Who

Hello -

I see you have reversed my edit for the codes of Doctor Who Series Four. ("This is incorrect and unsourced")

I can assure you that this edit is not incorrect - I am the editor of the official Doctor Who Magazine, and all of the scripts are labelled with the episode code.

4.2 is Planet of the Ood (but broadcast as Episode 3) 4.3 is The Fires of Pompeii (but broadcast as Episode 2) 4.8 is Midnight (but broadcast as Episode 10) 4.9 is Silence in the Library (but broadcast as Episode 8) 4.10 is Forest of the Dead (but broadcast as Episode 9)

The transmission order was changed after the episodes were made. Would be good if you could change the edit back.

Thanks.

Tom Spilsbury

Themileshuntclub (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom. The problem here is verifiability. The current codes are asumed to contain the episode number, and most of the info is actually sourced from Doctor Who magazine, as it was published in the months prior to broadcast. So either DWM have published the wrong information, or they were changed afterword. In either case, both scenario's are unverifiable, thus cannot be published here. Now if DMW could publish a definitive list, that would certainly help us to end all possible confusion.

Anyway, I will bring this to the attention of the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, becuase this is interesting. — Edokter • Talk • 22:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a reliable source that Midnight was originally the eighth episode: DWM 397 - I know for a fact they show a scan of the script for Midnight, which says as the header "Series 4, Episode 8", and I think the interview with Moffat says SITL/FOTD was produced as nine and ten. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)