User talk:Edokter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Whoniverse (2)[edit]

41.132.49.185 has now gone against consensus and removed a large amount of sourced material, as well as making a large amount of the article appear in italics. The article is now very WP:POV. They have also engaged in other disruptive behaviors, despite your warning. Could you do something about this? G S Palmer (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

All mentioned in length on the discussion page, which User:G S Palmer seems to have declined to contribute to constructively. What I have done is remove all the rambling totally unsourced WP:POV and instead put in what the WP:RS actually state. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the italics with parenthesis. My only problem is that the same WP:RS is listed as References numbers 1-4, and I do not know how to make them all show up as the same citation. other than that, the article is a definite improvement over what it was. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding? The article is now merely a poorly written outline of your thesis! Please see WP:NOTOPINION. This article now has no reference to the current meaning, namely the fictional universe that Doctor Who takes place in. Also, you are attempting to discredit that view by inserting all the quotes where the author says things like "this is just my opinion." This article needs to be returned to Edokter's clean slate or merged with Doctor Who. G S Palmer (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
41.., your version is way too singular and based on a single source. I urge you to revert the mass removal and work from there. As long as information is sourced, you should not remove it. Information from the BBC for instance is reliable. Your interpretation of policy is overly strict. You may also want to read up on Wikipedia:Writing about fiction.
GS (and ohters), everything you add must be supported by at least one source that confirms the information. No [citation needed] tags; if such info is added, it is subject to removal.
If you can't work it out, I will have to force you to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution by temporarely locking the article. Edokter (talk) — 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The problems here are simple:

1)As at least have a dozen WP:RS show, the Original Usage is the Current Usage.

2)And the reason the article "Whoniverse"(referring to the fictional setting) is based on a single source is because that is the only WP:RS using that definition that anyone has been able to find after many long hours searching.

The "Current usage" section is wrong. The term is most commonly used currently in the exact same sense that the "original usage" section defines. The Loccifier mention is the only RS using G S Palmer's definition, and there are numerous RS(including at least 3 from official BBC websites) using the term in its original meaning. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, but User:G S Palmer's POV-pushing, OR, and plain disruptive editing has now gotten totally out of hand. He/she persists in adding unsourced, POV material, as well aa adding sections that have nothing to do with the subject of the article. I have tried repeatedly to discuss this on the discussion page, but he/she just blanket-reverts the unsourced OR mess, without trying to engage constructively at all on the discussion page. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Edokter, the version currently protected is the faulty version, despite what this user wants you to believe. This article needs to be changed back to your clean version, because as it is it makes no mention of the fact that the term is currently applied to the fictional universe. If it fails to mention that aspect, then the article should either be deleted or merged with Doctor Who fandom or Doctor Who This version is filled with POV, and in addition is poorly written. Furthermore,the reason no one has found any sources is because we have been too busy trying to contain this user, who has been both reverted and warned by both User:Mezigue and myself, as well as an impartial user who 41.132.49.185 attempted to recruit. Please consider changing the protected version back to where it was before 41.132.49.185 rewrote it to fit their opinion. G S Palmer (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, it mentions it in the opening paragraph. And G S Palmer's "clean" version is the unsourced POV one. In any case, Admins can read both versions, and make a reasoned judgement, rather than just blanket-reverting like G S Palmer does.41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, no it doesn't. It never once makes mention of the term "fictional universe". Also, the first sentence is terribly written: "The Whoniverse(a portmanteau of the words "[Doctor] Who" and "universe"), is an idea concerning the BBC television show Doctor Who and its spin-offs published by Jean-Marc Lofficier in his 1992 book The Universal Databank.[1]"'. What's with the parenthesis around Doctor? I fail to see what was wrong with the version from before your bold edit: it was well sourced and impartial. Your change of it shows that you are biased. G S Palmer (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's entirely because the only RS never once uses that term. I am sorry to say that I re-wrote the opening paragraph to the point that the information was actually Reliably Sourced, and the information in the article could be Verified by the Reliable Source. My main concerns with the prior version were that a)there were no Reliable Sources to back up anything it said and b)it took it for granted that Doctor Who has always been intentionally set in the "fictional universe" called "The Whoniverse". Unfortunately, as stated repeatedly on the discussion page, the earliest recorded usage of the term "Whoniverse" to use the term in this way is from 1992. Nor is it universally accepted today that Doctor Who is set in this "fictional universe". There are certainly no BBC links stating this. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to list everything currently wrong with the article here. Also, merely by the grace of being a work of fiction, Doctor Who is set in a fictional universe. Your assertions otherwise still fail to hold up to scrutiny. G S Palmer (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I have replied there. And I believe the discussion should be kept there, rather than clogging up Edokter's talk page. Also, your "merely by the grace..." comment is the very definition of WP:POV, and can not possibly be taken seriously in terms of writing a Wikipedia article. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Editnotice formatting[edit]

Hi Edokter,

{{Editnotice}} looks ridiculous on ridiculously narrow screens and/or with unusually large font sizes. Do you think that it would be possible (and, I hope, not very difficult) to make it format a little more sensibly, so that the left-hand image doesn't always take up an entire column? It's definitely beyond me even to suggest something that might work, but you will be able to see the issue by editing any WP:TFA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

TFA doesn't have editnotices as far as I can see. Oh right, Template:TFA-editnotice. The editnotice template is just a wrapper; it's the message (and parameters) passed to them that decide how it is shown. Do you have examples? Edokter (talk) — 23:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Look at what TFA-editnotice does if you make your browser window narrow (e.g., as narrow as a smartphone screen). Or Template:Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement. I think it would make more sense for the text wrap to around the icon, like we do with most uw-type talk page messages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Articles using fixed number of columns in reflist[edit]

Hi Edokter - could you give an explanation of why the above category has been created and is being tracked? At the moment it seems a little conspicuous for no reason. Thanks! SFB 23:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. See Template talk:Reflist#Deprecating fixed number of columns. Edokter (talk) — 02:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoniverse (Yes, again)[edit]

User:G S Palmer has wrongly declared a "consensus" which appears to consist entirely of him/her and User:Mezigue. He/she has taken to adding material that either does not have anything to do with the article, does not mention anything to do with the article, or is totally unsourced. His/her approach is basically to create an opinionated article made almost entirely out of whole cloth. While the discussion about the article's editing is still going on on the discussion page. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ask for a third opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. Edokter (talk) — 14:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it was brought up there already without my knowledge, and the whole thing just fizzled out. I already tried to take it to Edit Disputes, but it was thrown out. Is there somewhere else on Wikipedia that can get this issue resolved? Thank you. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mezigue, GraemeLegget and I have only been attempting to create a well-sourced, relevant article. There was a consensus to do so at Talk:Whoniverse#Scope and content, with even 41 in agreement, and all content that has been added has been sourced. However, this user objects because not all of the sources mention the word "Whoniverse". They claim that this is WP:SYNTHESIS. We have tried to explain that it is not, but they refuse to listen. If they continue to revert to the poorly written version, would you consider semi-protecting the page? Thanks! G S Palmer (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. We agreed about the way the article should be structured. User:G S Palmer then started adding material that was either A)totally unsourced, B)sourced from non-RS fanboy websites or C)material from proper RS that never actually mention anything to do with the subject of the article. It is the last of these three that is clearly SYNTHESIS. I have explained and re-explained more times than I can even begin to remember. User:G S Palmer ignores this, while User:Mezigue has actually said that they don't care what policy is, because he/she and User:G S Palmer want things their way, so that is it. I have had to copy-paste sections of Wikipedia Policy on the Whoniverse discussion page, and yet User:G S Palmer still adds material that is either A)totally unsourced, B)sourced from non-RS fanboy websites or C)material from proper RS that never actually mention anything to do with the subject of the article. I'm not denying that User:G S Palmer created a relevant article. It's just that it was most certainly not "well-sourced". Of the three the most alarming may be hi/her attempts to lift Doctor Who material from pages that pass as RS, but where those pages never mention anything to do with the subject of the article he/she is adding them to. The fact remains that all we have is Lofficier's Foreword(and User:G S Palmer both puts in information that is contrary to what Lofficier himself states, and ignores the parts where Lofficier himself refers to how this is just his take, and that others may come to different conclusions). There is also another article that they claim is a RS, but it's about a Fan festival, and a reference to "the Daleks and the Cybermen being the two biggest baddies in the Whoniverse" is the only thing of any relevance. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"while User:Mezigue has actually said that they don't care what policy is, because he/she and User:G S Palmer want things their way, so that is it. " You know, it is not a good idea to affabulate on a web site where everything is on the record. I said no such thing of course, I said you don't understand those rules (and make some up). As an aside, I am not sure why this conversation always restarts on poor Edokter's talk page when he is not involved. Mezigue (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • User:Edokter, I just wanted to let you know that I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for reverting 4 times within 24 hours and have warned the other editor (who is at 3 reverts) that he will almost certainly be blocked if he reverts again. I'm glad the IP has reached out to WP:NORN, but that doesn't make it okay to cross WP:3RR and it's only 10 days ago (as you know) that he was at the EWN. :/ I don't have any objection to an early unblock if you deem it appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • And now they're both blocked. (What's that forehead slap icon? :P) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
      • That would be {{facepalm}}. I was wondering what to do myself, being mildly involved. Glad you stepped up. Edokter (talk) — 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
        • The sad thing is that I actually was glancing at WP:NPOVN to see if there was anything I could help out with - I had no expectations to be using admin tools. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-13[edit]

18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
A big thank you for your image thumbnail gadget, which has made a huge difference to the way images appear in articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts[edit]

You put up with it longer than I did. But I am old and long ago learned not to wrestle with greased pigs. He will probably keep adding comments, but I have no intention of further interaction. --  Gadget850 talk 12:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I should have ignored him from the beginning; that was my biggest mistake. Don't worry though, when I intend to ignore someone, I don't even read their comments anymore. Edokter (talk) — 12:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-14[edit]

09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reuse of Tech News in the Signpost's Technology report[edit]

Greetings from another Whovian, and thank you for all your work on the Signpost. I'm happy to see that Tech News is useful to you, as editor of the Technology report. I was wondering if we could find a consistent way of including content from Tech News: sometimes items are cherry-picked from the newsletter, sometimes the whole content is copied verbatim, and sometimes content is copied without as little as a link to attribute its provenance.

I think it's perfectly fine to cherry-pick content, since not all items apply to the English Wikipedia. Copy/pasting content verbatim is also perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, since Tech News was started as a way to consolidate monitoring efforts on technical topics across community publications such as the Signpost. However, I think it would be useful to define how to properly attribute that content, not just to give authors of Tech News the proper credit they deserve, but also to give Signpost subscribers a clearer idea of the provenance of the content they're reading. To some extent, this also applies to the content copied from the monthly Wikimedia engineering report, although it matters less because I'm its author and I care more about properly crediting the volunteers who write Tech News :)

Historically, the Signpost has used templates such as WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Rquote to cite content from the engineering report, or {{cquote}} for longer cited content. I think the latter would work well for content republished from Tech News, along with a source line linking back to the original Tech News issue. Do you think that would work?

Thank you for your time :) guillom 13:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. I will certainly take care of the attribution in the future, and retian the footer. I don't think the quote templates are specifically usefull in this context though. Edokter (talk) — 13:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it :) guillom 12:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Main page proposal[edit]

I think it's time to put your new framework to the test. Would you like to do the honours and put up the proposal on the Main Page, as well as advertise it on WP:CENT and any other usual venues? --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very good at drafting proposals, but I'll do my best. Edokter (talk) — 21:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You could type up a draft here, and we could work on it together. If you'd like. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's get through this day first, otherwise I am tempted to propose a pink page with ponies. Edokter (talk) — 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Your redesign of the mainpage has been literally the only April Fool's gag to make my curmudgeonly old face crack a smile today, so thank you! Yunshui  12:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Well played. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Fooled ya... Edokter (talk) — 12:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 41.132.48.255[edit]

As part of the continued debate at Whoniverse, this IP has now resorted to accusing User:Mezigue and me of WP:MEAT. ([25], [26], [27], [28]) Do you think you could do something about this? G S Palmer (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position.[14] Such a recruited member is considered analogous to a sockpuppet even though he is actually a separate individual (i.e. "meat") rather than a fictitious creation." [29]. Maybe "meat puppet" was a bit strong.41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
A bit strong? Mezigue has been a near constant contributor to the discussion on the talk page. In fact, he was their before I was! This is not even vaguely like meat puppetry! G S Palmer (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Jesmion[edit]

Hi, it's a pleasure getting intouch with you, i thrill the first time i got you shew concern about me, frankly i was thrill am of preferable change from years of suspension, Thanks, 41.220.68.12 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Jesmion[edit]

Hi, it's a pleasure getting intouch with you, i thrill the first time i got you shew concern about me, frankly i was thrill am of preferable change from years of suspension, Thanks, 41.220.68.12 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
For your tireless work improving typography on Wikipedia, including gadget development and more. The community owes you a lot. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Edokter (talk) — 21:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-15[edit]

08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

High praise[edit]

I can't express with a Barnstar how much appreciation I have for your work on redesigning the Main Page. I've attempted to do exponentially smaller projects (redesigning a WikiProject logo, for example) and was barely able to handle the dejection and apathy I was confronted with. Unfortunately, most people simply don't care about the minute details that go into design. It would undoubtedly kill me to take up a project as large as yours, and I wanted to personally thank you for giving a shit about Wikipedia's design, rather than simply giving way to those wishing to remain stagnant.

Your work can and will lead millions of people to learn from and contribute to Wikipedia. The time and thought you've committed are vastly apparent, and again I have to state my appreciation of that. Truly, thank you. --Nicereddy (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-16[edit]

07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Typography opt-out[edit]

Hi Edokter. I use the "Vector classic typography" opt-out in my Gadgets, which I believe you created (and thank you so much for that!). However, it appears to have stopped working in the last few minutes. Do you know of any recent technical changes which might have caused this, and (more to the point) how to fix it? I've tried the usual refresh cache/try different browser approach, but to no avail. Cheers, Yunshui  09:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting; Twinkle's gone as well - probably related... Yunshui  09:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, there's a thread developing at WP:VPT - sorry to bother you. Yunshui  10:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)