Jump to content

User talk:Edokter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jigesh (talk | contribs) at 13:53, 29 May 2009 (→Name pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you leave me a message, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template.

E-mail

Hi Edokter,

I sent you an e-mail on April 15. Did you receive it? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and as you may already know, I have resigned from WP:IECOLL. — Edokter • Talk • 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re WP:ANI and the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) article

I think it best if another mediator is contacted, and resolution of the content issues pursued. I do not believe that the ANI discussion is going to advance any further and it may be best to step back from the article until some resolution is achieved. I am copying this message to the other two article contributors who posted to ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You broke Template:Navbox

In your last edit, you changed the name of a parameter from "navbar" to "Navbar". This broke a lot of templates. Please revert that part of your edit asap. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already took care of it, when I spotted a report about this on the VPT. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes... I mistook that for the navbar template. — Edokter • Talk • 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re {{do list}}

do you really think that's too heavy on the preprocessor? I designed it to be nested (so it only has to hit conditionals for the parameters provided), so I'm having a hard time seeing at as being all that expensive. or am I misunderstanding something? --Ludwigs2 14:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that not all parameters are evaluated, but it is the nesting itself that is worrysome; the preprocessor still has to parse the entire first evaluation, which contains all others. If there are lots of items, it has to recurse through a maximum of 50 levels, with is very memory intensive. I may be wrong, perhaps you can best ask for advice about performance impact on Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). — Edokter • Talk • 14:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. I like the idea (which is why I made the template), but if it's too processor intensive I should scrap it. thanks. --Ludwigs2 14:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(update) HappyMelon, at least, seems to think it's not a problem, but I'll wait till the silliness below is dealt with and we can discuss the issue further. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Violation of the three revert rule on Companion (Doctor Who). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Edokter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Completely unjustified and out-of-policy block that prevents nothing; other party is a totally non-communicative vandal that kept inserting nonsense. I do NOT report to 3RR in order to get blocked. Black Kite should unblock immediately. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at the diffs provided, this block is fully justified and within policy as a clear cut 3RR violation. The editor who you reverted was neither inserting nonsense nor vandalism, and your 5 reverts do not meet any of the exceptions. - auburnpilot's sock 18:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Edokter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

For crying out loud... The user was reverted by multiple editors and was being disruptive; Edit warring without communicating is equal to vandalism. And the block still does not prevent anything. Perhaps you should both brush up on blocking policy. — Edokter • Talk • 18:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

AuburnPiIot is right. WP:3RR exempts only "obvious" vandalism (bold in original), defined as "edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism". This does not apply to the edits you were reverting.  Sandstein  20:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Edokter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is STILL wrong for being made 6 HOURS after the events. — Edokter • Talk • 22:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

This has been declined twice now by two different admins. I don't think continuing to make unblock requests will help your case in any way. Usually it leads to revocation of talk page editing instead. Regards SoWhy 21:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I concur with Edokter's analysis. Blocks are to prevent harm to the project, and Edokter was editing for the good of the project. The other editor was one of those bad-faith uncommunicative fans of which Doctor Who seems to produce so many, and was being disruptive. The day when admins are blocked for removing obvious drivel from pages, in the face of ignoring users, is a very sad one. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would expect an admin, even more than other users, not to (a) enter into an edit war, and (b) make five reverts of an edit that, whilst not exactly useful, certainly wasn't vandalism. Not to mention that the other editor did not make any edits between Edokter warning him of 3RR and then reporting him to the admins board. Black Kite 18:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics... I did warn the editor for posting incorrect information, and he was warned several times by ohter editors; the editor knew full well he was not to add the information back. And filing 3RR takes time. — Edokter • Talk • 18:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but I don't think this is a bad block. It may not be preventative, but either would it have been to block the other party and not you, especially as you may have precipitated the situation by the reverts. Personally I would have stopped before 3RR as it wasn't obvious vandalism. Nja247 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well

As soon as the block expires, I will be file an ArbCom case agains Black Kite, Sandstein, AuburnPiIot and SoWhy. This is purely a punitive block; it proevents nothing. Many admins have been admonished for making such a block. I will not accept this block, as it is rotten to the core, and I am not one to take lightly to that. — Edokter • Talk • 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're of course free to do as you like, but this type of reaction is certainly not helpful. I hate to say it, but you need to take the advice I give to many hot headed non-admins, ie walk away from the keyboard and cool down. Hope things work out mate, but as noted above I don't think the denying admins are in the wrong. Nja247 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Really? Edokter, I know how frustrating it is to be blocked for a 3RR violation after filing the report (that is the exact situation that led to my 3RR block back in '06), but threatening to go to ArbCom over the block really is beneath you. If you think there's a case, by all means, but I'd encourage you to take a few steps away from the keyboard before doing it. - auburnpilot's sock 21:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, whie this is a punitive and incredibly poorly thought-out (due to the disruptive nature of the other user involved) block, it's not an ArbCom issue and I don't think that they'd accept the case.
That said, still not impressive IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to uphold the principle that any block not made to prevent any action is purely punitive, and therefor out of policy. Even Nja247 says that this is not a preventative block. And I do happen to be particularly alergic to such blocks, so I simply have no choice. Black Kite can still redeem himself by unblocking me, otherwise, he will be admonished. — Edokter • Talk • 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block remains preventative because your comments here indicate that you would continue to edit-war in the same vein if unblocked.  Sandstein  22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to make clear that I said 'may not', and I meant for it to mean exactly that. I also said I believe you precipitated the issue with your reverts. Further, the do this 'or else' behaviour is alarming coming from an admin. Chillll, Nja247 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I duely realize I broke 3RR, and I will refrain from any action against this user; in the future I will ask other admins to deal with it. The fact that I reported a 3RR report should have indicated that I had no further interest in persuing the matter. — Edokter • Talk • 22:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would probably have helped your case if you had filed a 3RR report two reverts earlier. I have been on the receiving end of a similar block as yourself, and I (as do you) only had myself to blame for revert/edit warring past the "3" rule. You should have filed a 3RR or dispute resolution case sooner, then you would most likely had the admins on your side. For the record, I agree with your reverts 100%, but as a seasoned editor you should have been more aware of the rules in dealing with the issue. Try to keep a cool head, count those reverts and request assistance if need be, there are plenty of editors here who can take over if you hit the 3RR :) magnius (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in a bit late here, I have to agree with those who are troubled by this punitive block. Edokter has raised valid points. The other user was clearly engaging in WP:Disruptive editing: repeatedly adding (using various wordings) the same unsourced statement, completely ignoring the opposing consensus shown by the reverts of the same change in March and April, and the relevant messages and warnings from other editors on their talk page. In fact, a look at the user's contribution history gives no indication that the user has ever bothered to interact with any other editors at all - not one change to any Talk: or User Talk: namespace pages, or to any WP: page other than WP:Introduction. Further, while WP:Vandalism may not explicitly say so, a quick search of the various namespaces for "repeated insertion of unsourced" shows that such behavior _is_ generally considered vandalism. As such, IMO Edokter would have been well within his rights (as an admin) to block the other user directly for the disruptive editing (perhaps that would have finally gotten the user to read and respond to the many issues raised on their talk page!) But instead he simply tried to de-vandalize the article in question - and was blocked for it. John Darrow (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok

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

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

Series/Season Distinction between English English and American English

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

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

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

Ireland collaboration

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

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

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

Battle star Galactica

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

A Streetcar Named Marge

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

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

Cite news and accessdate

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

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

Name pages

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

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

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

Jig bot

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

thanking you,

Jigesh

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edokter&oldid=293095311"