Jump to content

User talk:Alex 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped get "Thirteenth Doctor" listed at Did You Know on the main page on August 31, 2017.
This user was a top contributor to "Forever (2014 TV series)" which became a good article on October 20, 2015.
This user nominated "Sense8" as a good article, which became a good article on May 15, 2016.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 1)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on May 15, 2017.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 2)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on July 27, 2017.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 3)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on May 17, 2018.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 4)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on August 20, 2018.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on October 21, 2018.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 6)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on September 3, 2019.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 7)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on 17 April 2020.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (2013 specials)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on September 23, 2019.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 8)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on October 21, 2020.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 9)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on November 23, 2020.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 10)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on March 7, 2021.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 11)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on March 12, 2021.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 12)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on November 8, 2021.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (2023 specials)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on February 15, 2024.
This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coolio 226 (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 14 December 2018 (→script-linecolour bug: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Home Talk Userboxes Scripts Sandbox 1 | 2 | DW | Module: / Sandbox TV Shows Notes Contributions Subpages Uploads
User:AlexTheWhovian/Archive

Suleyman the Magnificent

Why did you undo my move? Generally if you are reverting another editor's move you should explain why ... I don't really think that this is a "technical move", which is only supposed to be for uncontroversial moves. There wasn't even any attempt at discussion, and based on the sources I've seen the spelling "Suleiman" is antiquated.Seraphim System (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim System, it was listed by AjaxSmack at WP:RM/TR under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". As I have pinged the requesting editor, they will now be aware of your revert and warring over the move. It seems that it was your move that was not discussed. If you disagree, please take it to the article's talk page. -- AlexTW 06:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The title has been stable nearly a month. This is not a non-controversial move. t should be obvious that reverting a move that has been stable for nearly a month is not a non-controversial technical request. The best course of action would have been for it to be discussed with the original mover and that is frankly what you should have told the editor at RM. The reason for disputing a justified change needs to be explained on the talk page by the editor who is challenging the move. If that had happened, I would have started the RM discussion myself. That's why I was trusted with the perm. Moving this as a "technical" request was completely inappropriate and accusing an editor of "warring over the move" is only compounding that error. RM/technical move is not a justification for this move, you can move it again and provide a justification as an editor, and I won't revert but there needs to be a justification. This is not a non-controversial technical request. Please don't do something like this again.Seraphim System (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim System, thank you for your opinion. Don't perform controversial moves, and I won't have to do something like this again, will I? Any move can be considered controversial if there is no consensus for it and the move is contested; moves can be contested years after they were performed. Now, as I said: take it to the article's talk page. -- AlexTW 07:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim System, your recent undiscussed move of this article from a title that had been stable for 12 years should have been done through the WP:RM process to begin with. You should bear the burden of proof that the title Suleiman the Magnificent is not the correct title rather than putting the burden on other editors to defend a long-time, stable title. Note WP:TITLECHANGES: "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." I don't oppose your new title per se, but evidence should be marshal(l)ed and input given before it is conducted. —  AjaxSmack  15:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Sullivan/Template:Brief

I just wanted to briefly pull you up on the removal of Sullivan as a source. Seeing as the source has made it through multiple FA and GA candidacies (e.g.), I think there is already a general acceptance that the site is a reliable source. In any case, I don't think there's a consensus to treat it as not an RS, just to remove it in the EL sections (which I agree with, to be honest). Sceptre (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something passes inclusion in a GA or FA, that doesn't mean that it is automatically acceptable or a "Move Straight To Go" move; in fact, I think there's previously been discussions of making guidelines that explicitly state such a thing. The site is a fan site, and thus automatically does not meet WP:RS. Quoting the deletion discussion, the consensus of which was "delete": This seems like blatant promotion for a particular fan-site when, indeed, there are hundreds of such sites out there / Fan sites should not, and never should be, considered as a reliable source / No indication that an exception should be made here; or that the person running the website has access to "knowledgeable sources" (or is one). It should never have been added, and we always need to keep and update Wikipedia on a strict level of reliable sources. -- AlexTW 00:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Sherwin

As a major contributor to Dr Who articles, you should have reaslised that this information is fully sourced in the Derrick Sherwin page with an attribution to that page's contributors in the edit summary - so fix it yourself if you are concerned rather than just wholsale removal of content; you could also have contacted me whatever WP:BRD says, and I'll also point out that the content was not contentious and is not a BLP. . Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Kudpung, unsourced information cannot be kept via the policy of WP:V. It is up to the editor themselves to make sure that they source their information correctly, not other people unrelated to the edit. If you want the content on the page, then you have to copy across the sources as well, and make sure that you attribute the copied content correctly. -- AlexTW 01:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cache clearing issue?

Hey Alex. I've just been monitoring what has been still showing as linking to Untitled Avengers film after the move, and there are still a quite a bit of articles in the mainspace showing links. These are all most likely from former links in the various navboxes on the film article. I've doubled checked the links are no longer in these navboxes, cleared my browser cache, and done a few purges, but it doesn't seem to help. Any chance you might have an idea of why a lot of these articles are still showing as linking or know of any other tricks to help purge the Wikipedia servers? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Favre, I was actually following the same thing when we performed the moves and updates last week, but forgot to go back to it; I'm surprised there's still so many. I'm not sure why they're not clearing out, but I do know of a few tricks (1.3 and 1.4 of WP:PURGE), so I'll take a look into it for you. Cheers. -- AlexTW 23:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All  done! The only links now are on non-mainspace pages (Wikipedia, talk, user, user talk, etc.) As a result of the purging, Special:WhatLinksHere/Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel was also cleared out. Also moved and updated Template:Editnotices/Page/Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame. -- AlexTW 00:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thanks for the help, as always! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

script-linecolour bug

I'm not sure if this has been fixed since March, but the script seems to be a little over-eager. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YouTube_Rewind&diff=prev&oldid=830222711 One of the mistaken edits was still on the page - "FFFFFF and gold dress".

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_21&oldid=873657434"