Jump to content

User talk:Digby Tantrum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Movellon (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 20 June 2007 (→‎your edits to Doctor Who). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you desire a prompt response, I check my email more often than my user pages.

Response

  • I was responding to a request from another user in reinstating the "Burn with me" point. I believe as the production staff have said they wanted this as a catchphrase for this episode, a previous use of the phrase within the same series is notable. Wolf of Fenric 18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But belief isn't, in itself, grounds for inclusion. I'm afraid that, unless you can produce a source that backs this up as significant (and the Fact File certainly isn't that), it's speculative and therefore original research (although I am open to the possibility that it may prove significant later on; we're just not there yet.)
I'm not going to waste time reverting it again for the time being. Mainly because I'm sure someone else will. Digby Tantrum 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you notice that different people keep putting this note in? Seems like many consider it noteworthy. Continuity notes about Francine Jones and the Sinister Woman's conversation keeps going in and out. So does continuity notes about Martha getting the superphone and TARDIS key. In the cases of the latter two; yes, they are covered in the plot summary. But they're continuity noteables, too. The like can be found repeated in the plot and continuity sections of episodes regularily, as people who are keeping up on continuity then don't have to comb the plots to find out which episode Martha got the TARDIS key, and which one Francine's mother spoke to the Sinister Woman about Mr. Saxton. -- AvatarMN 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 3, Issue 22 28 May 2007 About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule" News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 3, Issue 23 4 June 2007 About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman" News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 3, Issue 24 11 June 2007 About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?" News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About OG

I actually do think it's a reliable source - except for user-created content (forums, reviews). Will (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I checked. Just saying that the OG new section is quite reliable. Will (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-parters

Does the "To Be Continued" count? Will (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Fan-cr*p==

Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 3, Issue 25 18 June 2007 About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants" Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your edits to Doctor Who

Hi - a quick look (and it is *quick* so I could be wrong) at your edits to Doctor Who seem to suggest that you have broken 3RR. I'm not going to do anything about it but edit wars are never the way forward. --Fredrick day 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So as you can't argue your point you are now going to try and discredit me? How text book. Pure coincidence, I am posting from a network Movellon 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of trying to discredit me why don't you provide a logical, verifiable, attributable argument for your case? In the discussion page. Movellon 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point makes no sense and you continue to avoid dealing with the follow: The BBC have stated that the TVM counts. They have done this on screen (Human Nature, Doctor WHO CONFIDENTIAL), on news items on BBC.co.uk/DoctorWho in a BBC published book (which also directly confirms the half human nature of the Doctor) the half human theme is central to the plot of the TVM, without it it wouldn't exist. The Doctor states that he has a human mother. This is all onscreen and verifiable. You ARE trying to impose your POV on the article and you are trying to hide behind WIKI:OR and WIKI:NPOV rules (when in fact you are the one violating them) and now you are trying to discredit me. Very very smooth man. I honestly feel like you need to take a step back because it feels like you are trying to WIKI:OWN the article.Movellon 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[1] That's happened a few times today!--Rambutan (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

Maybe...Stupid 24 hour periods. john k 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]