User talk:Edokter

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

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)

[1] 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 [2], 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 [3]. 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)

Image:Torchwood Something Borrowed.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Torchwood Something Borrowed.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. Troikoalogo (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Torchwood Dead Man Walking.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Torchwood Dead Man Walking.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. Troikoalogo (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Torchwood Adam.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Torchwood Adam.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. Troikoalogo (talk) 21:53, 11 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)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 (talk) 06:43, 15 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)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 (talk) 08:20, 27 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)

Could you be compelled to start acting more like an admin, please?

Comments like these are unacceptable and the accusation of wikilawyering border on violation of our NPA policy. Address the edits and not the editor. I would ask you to remain calm and polite. We disagree, that's all. I did not kick your dog or put your favorite Doctor Who dolly in the blender. You are an admin, and people look to you to set a good example. If you find yourself unable to engage civilly with me, I recommend you go elsewhere. Alternatively, you have the option of de-sysopping so your admin status is not threatened by bad behavior. Let's not have to broach this sucject again, okay? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As well, you are at your 3RR limit for several of the articles you have been edit-warring in. Admins shouldn't break the rules they are supposed to enforce. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I call it as i see it. You keep pressing issues against consensus, and when confronted with that, you start to play to the editor. Pointing out your actions and holding them against our policies is NOT a personal attack or uncivil, and you being offended is totally unjustified. Unfortunately, it does show how you intend to 'win' arguments, and I'm sorry to say, it borders on being disruptive. Why can't you just accept consensus? — Edokter • Talk • 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A. because the consensus here is largely wrong. they are letting their fannish zealotry cloud what should be happening here in a seemingly desperate need to stuff in every little bit of cruft possible. I call it as I see it, too. Your edit-warring in various articles also borders on disruption as well. Which of us is the admin here, and which is supposed to be acting better than the other? Is there a point when you are going to stop accusing me of behavior which you yourself are demonstrating? Not once have I addressed your multiple defenses of the DW wikiproject's need to be "different" as wikilawyering, nor have I addressed your following my edits around as wikistalking, though I certainly could have made a sound argument for both. I don't need to win arguments, so perhaps you could turn off your transference and actually look at your own actions recently. I have been, for the most part, polite and non-accusatory. You could beneifit mightily from following my example. I am not really seeing the need to weigh your accusations as legitimate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but I cannot take you seriously anymore... You really have a warped idea about consensus; "Because consensus is wrong"? Let me tell you one more time: You don't get to decide what consensus is; consensus is a group decision. And if you want your arguments to persuade other editors, and thus form a new consensus, then yes, do do need to "win" arguments. "Non-accusatory" also does not fit your description, because constantly have a counter ready. The botom line remains that you are unable to accept consensus. — Edokter • Talk • 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, first you decry my apparent need to win arguments and when called on it, you say that you need to win arguments? Consensus doesn't override the larger consensus o the community, which I can assure you is not nearly as "warped" as you feel it to be. Since you don't take me seriously anymore, you should feel utterly free to avoid addressing them in the future, which suits me fine. While I think my reasoning is exceptionally sound, I do have some difficulties in appraising yours as equally sound. Let's just avoid each other and move on. You certainly aren't changing my opinions by calling me names or threatening me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to win arguments on their merit, not on persistency. And once again... There is no larger consensus! Please step away; your attitude will get you into trouble. — Edokter • Talk • 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My arguments are based on merit and pursued with persistence and diligence, thanks. And again, you are wrong in not seeing a larger consensus, which I find disturbing in an admin. Please follow your own advice, and step away: my attitude is fine - I haven't personally attacked someone and then cloaked it as "calling it as I see it". Simply disagreeing with your reasoning doesn't make my behavior disruptive or troubling; that you seem all too willing to classify it as such deeply concerns me. You are welcome to avoid my edits, as you suggest. I will not poke you with a stick for doing so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are quickly moving yourself into a bad place to be. You have been making this huge deal about how we use BBC credit rolls to determine the article layout. And now you say there isn't even a guideline??? Sorry. You may propose an addition to the guideline for the wikiproject MOS. Until then, any format is valid, including alphabetization. I will also warn you to please be more civil and less attack-y in your posts in article discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no Wikipedia guideline. There is however our own MoS, which states that we use the end credits as the source. — Edokter • Talk • 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore, it doesn't. Please feel free to discuss the matter in the wikiproject discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Carefull now... one more edit like that will get you blocked. — Edokter • Talk • 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

fixIEScroll() in Common.js

See previous discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Jan 2008#Internet Explorer bug fix. Could you please provide some references that the bug really affects IE7? Because I cannot find any info except that link I shared in November. —AlexSm 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you searched for "horizontal scroll bug" on Google? When I did so, it seemed IE7 was also effected. But if you have IE7, just disable JavaScript to see if it is affected. — Edokter • Talk • 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I searched Google, and most pages were talking about some other IE bugs. It would be nice if you posted your findings in November. As for testing, this functions tuned out even weirder than I thought, so I posted at MediaWiki talk:Common.js#fixIEScroll(). —AlexSm 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking someone you were edit-warring with

Is that a particular good use of buttons? --Allemandtando (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not by me, but that was an entirely WP:POINT edit, thus disruptive. An other admin would have done the same. — Edokter • Talk • 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Two-parter/three-parter

I don't really see why we need a third-party source - as the director, Harper would be a reliable source on whether it's a two- or three-parter; RTD didn't do it all in isolation, and is not the only reliable source - for instance, Tennant, Tate, Piper, Collinson, and Gardner, I think, would be as reliable as each other when it comes to how it's set out, seeing as they're in the "inner circle". Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That as it may be, the way the episodes are produced, and the way the stories are connected, really establishes "Turn Left" as a stand-alone episode. Add to that that we would be out of sync with story numbering with other resources such as Brief History of Time Travel, who also consider it a two parter. I would like to see how they handle it first. — Edokter • Talk • 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And please don't war over it. — Edokter • Talk • 00:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The DWRG and BHOTT still list Utopia as a standalone episode. Harper's right on the mark that Turn Left's link to the finale is exactly like Utopia's: Episode 12 begins five minutes after the cliffhanger with everything fine. The set-up of elements in 4.11 to be used in 4.12 is similar as well (35 minutes of semirelated story, and the last ten minutes serve as a lead-in). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, The Doctor Who Refernece Guide does list Utopia as a three-parter. — Edokter • Talk • 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne

First of all, you being the administrator to block was highly inappropriate, as you clearly in a dispute with him. That aside, I fail to see any truly disruptive editing on the page you link. Would you should me what you consider "disruptive, and why? I intend to unblock him otherwise. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Look slightly above. — Edokter • Talk • 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are basing this block on the discussion held here? Taken alone, the edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who and the discussion Arcayne started here do not seem disruptive. Based on what I have seen happen, Arcayne's edit does indeed seem disruptive, regardless of the propriety of your block. But it seems you have unblocked him yourself already, the point is moot. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have an apology, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please hand in your mop

Dear Edokter, you're fired. Seriously, tho, I wish I had the authority to do such a thing. In fact, I wish anyone on Wikipedia other than Jimbo/ArbCom has the authority to do this. Unfortunately for the community, there is no mechanism of recalling/firing you. However, you should be aware that for all intents and purposes you're fired! I think you should do the most appropriate thing which is offer a full, unconditional apology to Arcayne and, before or after that, resign as an admin. Poor Arcayne will now have a block forever in his block log. You will have nothing, tho I wish that wasn't the case. As an admin you must be held to a higher standard. So, please, resign and go back to simply editing the encyclopedia. Bstone (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He did apologize, Bstone, and though he made a huge mistake, I think he's very well aware of it. He knows if it happens again, there will be dire consequences. Maybe you could see it in your heart to give him one more chance. I have. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, Arcayne, believe me, this counts for you on a day when you might need it. Bstone, Arcayne's block log for this will be no problem for him, for it shows the blocking admin as quickly withdrawing it as improper. I do not necessarily condone Arcayne's behavior leading up to this event, but that is an entirely separate matter than the blatantly improper block. I saw it and my jaw dropped. I have, below, advised Edokter how he can save his bit, should this be taken to ArbComm. From the unblock summary, Edockter acknowledges that the block was improper; but for the community to feel secure that he won't repeat that kind of error, more than an apology may be needed. It's possible, particularly with Arcayne's letting go of it, that nothing further will happen, but if Edockter, without facing process, makes it clear that he gets it, that he understands the error and the seriousness of it, he would be protected if, later, the matter arises. This incident is not "nothing." It's here in the talk record and if Edokter does anything like it again, it will be brought up. When User:Tango was taken before ArbComm for an improper block, a review was made of all his blocks and some worrisome ones showed up and became a part of the case.

I am not of the opinion, and neither is ArbComm, that admins should be desysopped because they make a mistake. Administrators are volunteers who often take on major work load, without compensation. The problem with a mistake like this is that it is chilling for an adminstrator to use the tools in a personal dispute or conflict. Suppose an admin warns a user not to do something. The user tells the admin that he's being a dick. Can the admin block for incivility? With Tango, Tango even had the idea that he was enforcing an ArbComm civility probation on an article, and that was not enough. No, he can't. He can block if the user does what he was warned not to do. But here, it was even worse: the admin was deeply involved with the same article and clearly in a dispute with the user he blocked. No, no, and no. It was a massive error. But, we can hope, it was still only a single mistake, quickly reversed. --Abd (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the block was justified, and Edokter's apology more contrite than it needed to be. Arcayne had been told and shown so many times that the consensus was to keep cast-lists as they were, so "boldly changing the guideline" when he knows he's against consensus is disruptive. Edokter's points about Arcayne's cruft-warring behaviour were right on the spot and I think he has acted fairly through this - more so than I would have expected or hoped for - in a nice way! ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 06:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider everyone agrees this was a bad block, including Edokter, I think its fair to assume that it was indeed a bad block and totally against policy. Sorry, TT, but i think you may be alone in your opinion. Bstone (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider everyone agrees he shouldn't resign, including Edokter, I think its fair to assume that indeed he shouldn't. Sorry, B, but i think you may be alone in your opinion. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is how to keep the mop. Otherwise, see above.

Below is not any kind of demand, it is advice intended to help the community keep you as an administrator.

You were sucked or suckered into a major blunder. Easily, you could lose your adminship over this. You already know that it was an error. If you are to avoid going down the path of User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, two recent cases I'm familiar with, it is urgent that you:

1. Absolutely stop all attempts to defend the action. Let others defend you, if they do, and leave it alone if they don't. Do not defend yourself. Answer questions, if you are asked why you did it, say why you did it purely and simply. Do not justify it.
2. Trust that the truth will be sorted out by the community.
3. Show, by your maintained apology (which was contaminated, so far, by some level of self-defense and justification) that you understand, clearly, why an administrator must not use the admin tools in a dispute involving the administrator, but should, for that, behave as any ordinary editor and seek help from an uninvolved administrator. In other words, that you really screwed up and would, quite simply, never do that again.
4. Apologize to the whole community, and cooperate with any RfC that arises over this, even encourage it.
5. Let others deal with Arcayne. Be careful about edit warring with him, don't even approach 3RR. I suggest a strict voluntary 1RR. Need to do more than that? Get help.

There are behavioral issues to be addressed for Arcayne. Let the community do that, be very careful to abandon any personal agenda with respect to him. Other people have eyes and can see. I will, for example, make a brief response to what is above. --Abd (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Input

Would appreciate your further input into our discussion regarding fairuse on the NFCC talk page. There are some good debates happening there, possibly with some reform in the works. Might also do you some good to get away from the areas where you are having trouble at the moment? Anyways, could use always use your help. ^_^ --Dragon695 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox consistency

Funnily enough, I was consistent when I went through the new series episodes - I changed them all to "2nd episode of 3-part story" because it's less ambiguous than "2 of 3 episodes". Do you mind reverting back? As it stands, they're less consistent now because they use "mins" whereas the rest of the new series uses "minutes" Sceptre ^(talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on a format first then? There's also no need to use 2 lines when the infobox is so lenthy already. — Edokter • Talk • 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether the line break should be there should be discussed, but I feel a need for disambiguation. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"2nd episode of 3-part story" is quite long, and already in the lead. How about "2nd of 3 episodes"? — Edokter • Talk • 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"2nd of 3-part story"? Only two more characters, less ambiguous. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. How about single episodes, which Dr who1975 is currently reverting? — Edokter • Talk • 23:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He is in fact reverting all episodes and not responding. — Edokter • Talk • 23:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"1 episode" is already implied by the infobox, and we should keep the infoboxes as short as possible. If he continues reverting, ANI him (you don't want to get more calls for your head, do you?) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Only multi- parters then (in which case, he did us a favor). I'll try the multi stories; if he revert, I'd appriciate you leaving him a note as well. No need fo ANI for now. — Edokter • Talk • 23:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All settled. — Edokter • Talk • 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For pages that are about individual episodes whether it's a part of a series or not has nothing to do with length. I have a suggestion, If you truly want to do it the right way you should add a new field to the template for "subseries".--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)