User talk:Edokter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Edokter's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Edokter.
If you leave me a message, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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
New good articles
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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Talkback

Template:Talkback has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wizardman 03:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 16 14 April 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles Image placeholders debated 
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk" News and notes: Board meeting, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Featured article milestone 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 17 21 April 2008 About the Signpost
BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested 
Global login, blocking features developed WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology" 
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes WikiProject Report: The Simpsons 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 18 2 May 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia 
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA WikiWorld: "World domination" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Did You Know ... Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 19 9 May 2008 About the Signpost
Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 20 12 May 2008 About the Signpost
Explicit sexual content draws fire Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia 
Foundation receives copyright claim from church Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy 
Update on Citizendium Board candidacies open through May 22 
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks 
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton" News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 21 19 May 2008 About the Signpost
Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case Board elections: Voting information, new candidates 
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks WikiWorld: "Hodag" 
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Good article milestone Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 22 26 May 2008 About the Signpost
Board elections: Candidate questions Single User Login opt-in for all users 
Community-related news sources grow WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat" 
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured sounds Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 23 2 June 2008 About the Signpost
Board elections open WikiWorld: "Facial Hair" 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)