User talk:Edokter/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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)

Please see further discussion on Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Revisited. — Edokter • Talk • 07:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the LOS page. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if that is Spilsbury, and neither DWM or the BBC consider Turn Left part of the three-parter, then I'll reverse my on-wiki position on the episodes. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW. Regarding the production code, could you (as a subscriber) work that out with Silsbury ands possibly correct those too? — Edokter • Talk • 13:14, 5 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)

I think we should talk about that on WT:DW before making such changes. I have reverted 3 changes by Sceptre thus, because I did not know about this discussion here. It's not really good if you talk only between yourselves and leave out others who will not find such discussion here easily. The template at WP:DW#Episode_pages should be followed or changed if needed. --SoWhy ^Talk 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Infobox consistency

Re: User: DoctorWho1975

Do you think it is a matter wherein it should be discussed in the WikiProject Talk, as the changes affect multiple areas? I was going to ask him to take the discussion there, but saw your comments there. Considering our friction before, I thought it best to talk to you first and get your feedback. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll move the thread to WT:DW. — Edokter • Talk • 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please

People come to the page to see where it fits in the Dr. Who series...there's nothing wrong with telling them that the Chirstmas special is next. Also (but certainly not the linch pin of any argument to keep the info) you realize we're going to have a title for this thing inabout 2 hours.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then they can go to the relevant page, in this case List of Doctor Who serials. On "Journey's End", this information is not relevant. — Edokter • Talk • 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Journey's End

I think we can just about get away with the current length - it stays below ten words per minute, and is a bit of a tangled plot. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Move protects

Just to let you know, Time Lord was one of the first Grawp move vandalism targets, and he's lately been going back and revisiting his earlier targets. But if you want to leave it unprotected, fine with me. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a while ago... And Grawp (or whoever) is probably laughing his ass off right now seeing an admin move-protecting as many articles as possible. — Edokter • Talk • 12:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr Who: Shakespeare Code

You say the NFCC demands reference? What is the NFCC?? Sean Martin (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. — Edokter • Talk • 23:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But I still can't see how anything in that policy statement that requires an offhand mention of the picture a significant distance down the article. Photo is already descriptively captioned, so additional text adds no info. Should picture get changed it is likely the required text change would be overlooked. So I don't see any reason for keeping the text and some for removing it. Sean Martin (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about overlooking... it is well watched. — Edokter • Talk • 06:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A favour

Sorry to bug you seemingly at random, but I need a Dutch speaker for a favour. Could you check out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Patricia_Remak and the article and make sure that the references (which are mostly in Dutch) support what is said in the article. I was tempted to remove the Wikipedia section anyway for WP:UNDUE but without being able to check the refs, I'm somewhat hesitant. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The conviction is backed by the references, as well as the part about the Dutch Wikipedia. Having said that, WP:UNDUE may apply here, as well as WP:NOTABILITY; her conviction is the only news-worthy element. Apart from that, I don't see any notability. — Edokter • Talk • 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking; very much appreciated. CIreland (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What The Fuck...?

Sorry, couldn't resist using that as a section header. Would you have any objection to redirecting this to the regular article What the fuck? It looks like a reasonable redirect to me, but - since you deleted it today - I thought I'd check with you first. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be an unnecessary (and double) redirect, as What the fuck (lower case) is already a redirects to Fuck, and searches are already case-insensitive, as long as no other capitalisations exist. The only reason would be it there are incoming links, but there aren't any. That is why I deleted it. — Edokter • Talk • 14:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Takes care of that, then - Didn't think about the lower-case searches, as that was my specific thinking for wanting a redirect. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Alternat(iv)e universe" in Journey's End article

Actually I did revert the edit I meant to. I find the phrase "alternate universe" ungrammatical and grating. Alternate is a verb. But there is enough Dr Who source material in the house for me to see if it is "canonical" usage. Rachel Pearce (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I just looked it up on Wiktionary, and it is labelled as 'misused' alternative to 'alternative'. On the other hand, it is a common term in science fiction. — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Just as I got back from a conversation with my 9-year-old, who suggested "parallel universe" as the canonical phrase, I see that you have come to the same conclusion. Yes, I agree, "alternate universe" is common in Sci Fi, but I think this may be mostly US usage. I still think it's wrong in British English. Rachel Pearce (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who discussion page

Actually, Fasach moved the anon's comment. I undid hat, as we don't get to refactor others' posts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it only looked like he moved the anon's comment, but that is only how the diff engine see it. Fasach moved his comment UP right after he posted it. — Edokter • Talk • 22:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing out my error politely. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Wikipedia

Hi again Edokter,

I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and I wanted to reassure you that making Portal:Wikipedia the main page should not cause you any headaches. Moving the main page would be a two-step process:

1. The main page would be moved to Portal:Wikipedia. Portal:Wikipedia would be temporarily transcluded back into Main Page, so that the two pages work identically while we move the links to the main page to Portal:Wikipedia.
2. After the links have been transitioned and everyone is comfortable with Portal:Wikipedia (perhaps about a month after step 1), Main Page would be changed to a simple redirect to Portal:Wikipedia.

The URL would change like you wanted: http://en.wikipedia.org/ would point to directly to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Wikipedia as part of step 1. And when editing Portal:Wikipedia, "Editing Portal:Wikipedia" is prominently displayed, so editing should still be straightforward and not very confusing.

Anyway, there are actually a substantial number of problems that moving the main page into the Portal namespace would solve:

• The top-left tab would read "portal" instead of "article".
• People who want to make copies of Wikipedia, such as people who provide computers to schools in Africa that can't get Internet access, would have an easier time separating actual articles from project content which they don't want to copy. Because the content of the main page changes dynamically from day to day, it would take quite a bit of work to make the main page work and keep working on an offline copy of Wikipedia. Thus, since the main page won't actually work by default, it's probably best to exclude it from copies of Wikipedia article content by default.
• The "cite this page" link in the sidebar would be hidden from screen readers and text-only browsers, and the sitewide CSS would no longer have to contain a special declaration to hide it.
• The article count shown at Special:Statistics would be accurate instead of being 1 higher than the actual number of articles on Wikipedia. {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} would also be accurate instead of being off by one.
• Statistics about Wikipedia articles would be more accurate and not slightly skewed by statistics about the main page that are likely to get mixed in.
• It would be generally easier to write bots and other automated scripts because developers would not have to worry about having to write special code for the main page, ever.

I hope this explanation helps resolve your concerns. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proms Cutaway

What happened to this page? Why did you delete it? Jasonfward (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It has moved to Music of the Spheres (Doctor Who). — Edokter • Talk • 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Link

Hi Edokter, You've just removed the external link to the Wilts & Gloucester Standard I placed on the K-9 and Company page, citing it as a dead link. I can find nothing wrong with it. Can you explain please? Jongleur100 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It just didn't work for me; nothing happened. External links should go in the ==External links== section anyway, or the link should point to an article (if there is one). — Edokter • Talk • 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How do I link to the newspaper in question if not in the body of text? I want to show that it is a real newspaper, but there is not a wiki article on it. Can I put it in external links? Jongleur100 (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth

Apologies for removing the planets image - that's simply because I can't think of a critically commentative caption for either, and lack of one may cause the FAC to fail. I think that, barring critical commentary for either, we should suspend any reinsertion of the image until after the FAC, and even then we should discuss and formulate a consensus that the image provides critical commentary. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unsupported unicode"

Hello! On 23 July, you edited the automatic edit summaries to replace code that I added with a space that alters their appearance. Could you please elaborate on your edit summary ("Unsupported unicode")? Thanks! —David Levy 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'non-width space' does not display properly, most notably under all versions of Internet Explorer; it shows as a square, even with all unicode fonts installed. This is a shortcoming of IE, but we should avoid using such characters to maintian wide compatibility. — Edokter • Talk • 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I fully agree, and I wasn't aware of the issue. (For the record, it's been resolved in Internet Explorer 7, but that obviously isn't sufficient) —David Levy 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

cookie!

Lerdthenerd (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

heres a cookie, I was reading through you're talk page and was upset to find you might lose you're adminship for blocking Arcayne, I dont want to see you lose the mop infact i agree with block i've just arrived back from haitus and i have a message on my talk page from Arcayne, saying i'm a fannnish zealot i find that very rude.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie. Don't worry about the adminship; that's water under the bridge. The block was wrong, and I already apologised. Don't let Arcayne under your skin though... — Edokter • Talk • 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The Trickster (Doctor Who)

Dear Edokter,

I am writing to inform you to explain your wish on my page being deleted. I would like to ask you that the Trickster is a crucial part of recent Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures. The Trickster is quite essential and I would like The Trickster's page not to be deleted. He is just like the Slitheen, Daleks, Cybermen et al. I implore you please, please, please, please, please restore the page, please.

Yours sincerely, Ratzo--Ratzo (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Irrel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Irrel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL

This guideline specifically states "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources", and "This guideline does not apply to inline citations, which appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." David Underdown (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Even for references and citations, the rule is that such resources must be accessable to the general public in order to be verifiable; read WP:VERIFY. Also, your link did not appear in "References" or "Notes"; it was an inline link, which does fall under WP:EL. — Edokter • Talk • 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all it's not my link - I don't really care enough about it to try and add it again - and whilst yes it had been added as an inlie link, it was effectively being used as a reference - there is no requirement in VERIFY for things to be non-registration, or otherwise free to all, so long as they can be verified by a reasonable number of people (and since registration is in any case free for this forum it's hardly an insurmountable problem). ODNB requires an account (though most UK residents qualify automatically, most scientific journals require subscription, all of these would be recognised as acceptable sources. In this particular case the link to the transcription was only being supplied as a courtesy link, and nothing major in the article depended on it. You could argue about the general reliability of forums, and there is a potential copyright issue with a transcript I suppose, but the registration question is definitely a red herring. David Underdown (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hi, can you please take a look at this so called article. I think it needs to be speedied but i cant think of the right criteria. Its in good faith but i dont think it belongs in the pedia. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't. It seems copied straight from a blog, so i deleted it under G2 (test page). — Edokter • Talk • 14:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Navbox

Hello, Edokter! I know you know the navboxes fairly well and was hoping you could help me. I had posted a question at Template talk:Navbox with collapsible groups#Expand more than one section and was hoping for some input. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Common.css

Howdy. Just fyi, Mzajac accidentally deleted some of my original message, which I've now replaced (at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Minimums). Hopefully it makes more sense intact ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed that. — Edokter • Talk • 10:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

2nd fyi: I created User:Edokter/fonttest/screenshots in your userspace, hope that's ok (Feel free to move it into my userspace if you prefer). I wasn't sure whether or where to link to it from User:Edokter/fonttest; please do, if you think it is useful. I also mentioned it in two threads at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Thanks again :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great.. thanks. I've put a link at the top. — Edokter • Talk • 14:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied at the pump

Hi there, I missed your reply before at the Village Pump -- just replied there, rather late. Interested in your thoughts. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_47#New_templates_for_user_page_.22trophy_cases.22 -Pete (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Heroes Episode Titles

This was asked and answered before . In that case about Geo blocking [1]. but the principle still applies here . The fact you or a large number of people can't see them doesn't make them non acceptable . Garda40 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference here, as Netflix requires payed membership for the information; that excludes it as a public source. I know other payed sources (magazines atc.) do qualify, but not here; verifiability has it's limits. — Edokter • Talk • 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you can't pick and choose what payed sources are acceptable .Either all payed sources are acceptable or none are and as shown on that link the fact that you have to pay doesn't exclude a source

Verifiable does not imply free, cheap, or convenient, although all of these are, of course, desirable. However, physical books may need a library subscription and an inter-library-loan fee. Many scientific journal articles are only available on a fee base. Paper newspapers need subscriptions. . Garda40 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think a pay site does not qualify. Besides, where do they get the titles from? — Edokter • Talk • 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Subscription based sourced are normally acceptable, but Netflix is a rental outlet, not a magazine, hence unverifiable . You pay for both them to get a product so unless you are suggesting you should pick up a magazine in a shop ,look at it for the information and walk out without buying it there is absolutely no difference .

Besides, where do they get the titles from? From similar sources as where Doctor Who Magazine get their information for episode titles from . Garda40 (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't cut it; I can walk into a store (or library) to look at the magazine, I can not get to netflix just to have a look inside unless I pay up, hence unverifiable. If they let non-members browse their catalogue, it would be a differen matter. Furthermore, Netflix has no journalistic merit; they are a rental outlet. You can't compare that with a magazine. — Edokter • Talk • 13:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask opinions on WP:RSN. — Edokter • Talk • 13:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey bro, you've had 4 reverts on this article. Just warning you about the 3RR rule. I'm gonna try for some mediation on this one. 128.252.254.31 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR means 3 reverts in 24 hours, not total number of reverts. — Edokter • Talk • 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects revisited

Hi, Edokter. I noticed that you deleted the redirect at Day of the Clown. I've also seen other redirects that you've deleted in the past, things like Aliens of London (Doctor Who). I don't think that deletion of these redirects is necessary or useful. Remember, redirects are cheap, and if a page has existed at a given title for any length of time, it's always possible that someone somewhere out there on the web has linked to the page at its old name. Furthermore, the naming guideline at WP:TV-NC recommends that redirects be created for TV episodes, so redirects like Aliens of London (Doctor Who) are actually preferred. (That recommendation came about as a compromise with editors who wanted all TV episode articles to carry disambiguation, whether they needed it or not.)

If a redirect comes from page move vandalism, or is an implausible misspelling, then of course it's fine to delete it. But it's conceivable that someone looking for the most recent SJA serial might type in Day of the Clown, and they should be able to be taken straight to the article they want. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to keep navigaton as simple as possible, with the least ammount of unnucessary disambiguation possible. The so called compromise was a bad idea if you ask me. It creates a navigational hell and pollutes my watchlist having to track all redirects. An article should have one name, and nothing else, apart form the more obvious variations. Aliens of London is unique enough to not need a disambiguated redirect. Likewise for titles starting with "The", as they are an obiquitous part of the title. Having a redirect here encourages mislinking, and hence using the wrong titles in the articles that link to it.

Redirects are cheap, but not free. So where appropriate, and where it will encourage the use of correct titles in linking, I will delete them. — Edokter • Talk • 16:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, reading the talk page for WP:TV-NC contradics the advice of creating extra redirects; there is an ArbCom ruling that episode names should follow normal naming conventions, ie. "Disambiguate only when necessary". I see no reason to deviate from this. — Edokter • Talk • 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with "Disambiguate only when necessary" with regard to article naming, which is what the dispute at WP:TV-NC was primarily about. Redirects are a completely different matter. They're about helping readers find articles, not about how the articles should be named. And it's a simple fact that our naming conventions can be confusing to readers and editors who don't understand the logic behind them. I agree that editors should learn that logic, and should make links correctly — but we can't assume that a random reader will understand why some pages get a disambiguation suffix and others don't. That's why redirects are useful, especially for pages like episode pages, where a reader won't know off the bat whether he needs to put a disambiguation suffix at the end of the search term.

I see that you've put an RFD tag on Day of the Clown. Let's see what the community at large thinks. I'm also going to open discussion about your bold change to WP:TV-NC. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jack Harkness dab

I was just going by the recommendations at WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic. It doesn't say anything about the term being "inseparable from the subject" — it just says that if there is a primary topic (which there is, in this case), that should be listed first, separated from the other entries. It's not that I think that the character Jack Harkness deserves special emphasis — it's just that among those meanings for "Jack Harkness", the character is the primary topic.

Is there a reason why you think that the guideline for linking to a primary topic shouldn't apply in this case? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't concider Jack Harknss to be a 'primary' topic; there are also two real-life persons sharing the same name. As I see MOSDAB, linking primary topics in the lead applis to common terms, not to names. — Edokter • Talk • 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing official statements

Mark Verheiden is a Writer and he is the Co-Executive producer for BSG. He CONFIRMED that the episode titles are CORRECT. Stop removing them, and more importantly stop threatening me with no basis. 24.111.234.4 (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Blogs, even from production staff, are not considered reliable sources. Plus, he explicitely states the titles are subject to change. Considering the post is also almost a year old, the information is not reliable at all, and cannot be used. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The information dates to September 19, 2008. Which was less than a month ago. Sorry. 24.111.234.4 (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on List of BSG episodes

I see you keep deleting these anonymous additions of the continued 4th season episode list. I side with you that who whoever is doing it complety fails to add a proper reference, so therefore you might want to consider asking for semi page protection. It will keep anons and newly created named accounts from editing the page. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and fill out a request. Just put on there like "Request page protection for a few days because of edit waring." You guys are violating the 3RR revertion policy - a potentially banable offense and if you keep it up you could both get banned and the anon could have the last laugh. Just a suggestion. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I just now realize you are an admin (saw the cleaning person in the upper corner), so I guess you know how to handle the edit war then. I'm was just surprised you hadn't banned him yet for constantly undoing your changes. I guess someone else did though so never mind. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that ban block-happy. I have warned the IP repeatedly, and will ask for protection or a block if the IP doesn't take note. — Edokter • Talk • 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Blog

The page clearly states the title.... and that being "Ask Ausiello BLOG". Sorry. 24.111.234.4 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, it is infact "Ausiello Files Blog". My apologies. 24.111.234.4 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Companion (Doctor Who)

With respect, you're wrong. Please read User_talk:Ckatz#Companion_.28Doctor_Who.29_fair_use_montage. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• And also with respect, if you continue to argue that this image is valid, I will raise an RfC about your ability to be an admininstrator. We elect people to uphold our policies, not to wikilawyer their way round them. Black Kite 23:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Black kite, this is a personal attack. Dissing my opinion and declaring me unfit is nothing short of sidtracking my arguments. I will not, I repeat I WILL NOT stop giving my opinion. If that is not to your liking, start the RfC now! Otherwise, STOP your personal attacks! — Edokter • Talk • 23:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Not a problem, but are you really sure you want to go there? Because RfCs on admins who clearly indicate that they are unwilling to conform with Wikipedia policy only tend to have one outcome. Black Kite 23:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Go right ahead. An RfC just for giving my opinion on an image??? I cannot wait to see the community laugh so hard they can't stand up anymore. — Edokter • Talk • 23:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm surprised you feel that way, because you're missing the point. And that point is COI. This is an area where you edit regularly, and you're attempting to circumvent a Wikipedia policy to make one of your pet articles look prettier. And it isn't - as you well know - the first time, either. I'm willing to let this IfD run its course, though, even though it doesn't look good. Black Kite 23:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
          • BK, you need to understand NFCC is very open to interpretation, and that anyone has a different one. You litterarely go around throwing personal acusations of "breaking" policy becuase their (my) interpretation does not match yours. That is just plain bullying, and I am very allergic to that. You need to learn to respect other people's opinions, becuase that is all they are. It is up to the closing admin to make a judgement on all the arguments presented, and frankly, your attacks certainly do not help your case. — Edokter • Talk • 23:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
            • • I am quite happy to respect other people's opinions. Opinions are great. BUT - we have our policies for a reason, and there needs to be a very good reason why we should override any of them. There isn't, frankly, any reason why we should throw WP:NFCC in the bin over this image - doing so would leave the project open to all kinds of copyright abuse. Seriously, if it was, say this image, then a case could be made for fair use. But 38 different copyrighted images? If we do this, then we might as well give up any pretence to being a "free" encyclopedia straight away. I understand your keenness to make the DW articles some of the best - I love DW myself, I remember hiding behind the sofa when Tom Baker was the Doctor - but I can't stand aside purely because of the subject matter and let us give up one ofr our core policies. I apologise if I seem aggresive over this, but I feel this is a case which could mean a lot of difference either way in the future. Black Kite 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(←) Our core policies actually allow fair use images; it is the extent of that which is left open to the community. You are set on your interpretation of that policy, and leave no room for other interpretations, and that comes off as a little paranoid. It is true I'd like to see a more liberal stance regarding fair use, and I am well entitled to that opinion. No RfC will change that. And there will always be "special cases", now and in the future; it is actually the driving force of Wikipedia in defining such policies. Trying to kill these discussions as you do is not a healthy way to participate in that process. Painting doom-scenarios is also of little use; whatever the consequences, they are a result of these discussions. — Edokter • Talk • 00:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Our sigs

How you been? I'm fine. Since I copied my sig code from you, you may want to check this out: s:User_talk:Rlevse#issues_with_your_sig — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we got it now. See my en wikisource page and sig here. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft claiming to speak for you

In User talk:Kww#Montage images as navigational elements, Hammersoft claims that he knows your opinion on Image:CheetahGirlsDiscography.jpg, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 October_29#Image:CheetahGirlsDiscography.jpg.E2.80.8E. Please let me know if he represented your views accurately.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a comment. — Edokter • Talk • 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Astrid Peth

Is it not ok to use humanoid as a descriptive race term? I mean she clearly is "humanoid". --Lemming64 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Humanoid" is not a race. And besides, we simply don't know her race, so anything will be speculation. — Edokter • Talk • 20:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Wall-E Input

Thank you for jumping in and offering your opinion and guidance. SpikeJones (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talkpage. I'm new here and still have to find out how everything works.K9876.3467 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Common.css edit

Hi,

Redarding this comment:

The bug described in the linked discussion is caused by a hard-coded line-height of 9pt in the Clubs section

The editprotected request is regarding template:infobox Football biography 2, which doesn't have any such hard-coding. Can you see if I've overlooked something? if not, fancy reconsidering? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah my mistake. However, the new template also contains bodystyle = line-height: 1.2em, which doesn't allow much room for sup and sub text. Try bumping that up to 1.5em and see if that makes a diffeence. — Edokter • Talk • 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We had it at 1.5em, but that's not acceptable to many in the discussion because of the excessive padding; it should be possible to override the default line height without issue. I'd rather we had a hack which allows IE to cope with line-height changes than a hack which stops people from noticing IE's issues at the default line-height, because (as noted in the thread in question) it leads to unexpected and difficult-to-track-down behaviour in IE if the line-height is overridden. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe the line-height is misplaced. Is there a test case where I can fiddle? — Edokter • Talk • 01:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Various test articles have been given - we need a compromise in various different places. This thread gives a typical example of expected output, Lutz Pfannenstiel is a good pathological case, and the superscript issue is easily shown here. Basically, the issue is that we need an {{infobox}}-based template which can cope with superscripts in IE but which can preferably cope with a line-height of less than 1.5em. The best way to me is an IE superscipt hac, but I'd love alternative solutions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not see the problem in here. However, the cell padding seems to be set to 1px, overriding the 0.2em default padding, which can be problematic. Removing the padding seems to solve it, with a slight increase of lineheight. Does it really need to be this tight? — Edokter • Talk • 15:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the problem is that in IE6 (but not IE7) the "App(Gls)" numbers are pushed down 4px or so from the row baseline by the superscript in the ref tag. I can't see where there's any overriding of the cell padding in any of {{infobox Football biography 2}} (used on that page), {{infobox3cols}} (which it inherits from) or {{infobox}} (which that template is derived from). So again we're back to the site classes if there's any overriding. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ping. Can you verify if what I said in my last comment adds up with you? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the 1px cell-padding either, which is weird. There is a line-height defined for <SUP> in Common.css, which was done to minimize jumps in lineheight when using (nested) references; 1em seemed to be the best compromise between browsers. — Edokter • Talk • 15:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wrappin'

Hey, in terms of this; how does it look now? I think it should be fixed. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the looks; links should have the same seperator. There are more boards that fall under AN; this just looks inconsistent. — Edokter • Talk • 18:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Becoming

Hi Edokter,

No one has commented on this discussion for five days now. Would you mind performing the talk page move, deletion, recreation, and merge as you suggested? I would, but I don't have the capability to do so because I'm not an administrator.

Thanks,

Neelix (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All done, technically that is. The Plot section needs copyediting as is a bit too long now. Only admin action required was moving the talk page. All old pages now redirect to Becoming (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), and only the incoming links to the old episode articles need to be adjusted. — Edokter • Talk • 13:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Edokter,

Thanks! I've fixed the only double redirect; I think the others can stay as they are, as indicating a particular part of the episode is not normally problematic. I think I'll start making similar merge suggestions on other Buffy the Vampire Slayer two-part episodes now.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

help with bad page move?

Looks like somebody screwed up a page move on the Winnie the Pooh page. Can you check the discussion on Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh#Talk:Winnie the Pooh redirects here... and see what needs to happen to line stuff up correctly again? Yeah, I know - it's minor, but somebody pointed it out. SpikeJones (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now; it was a stale redirect. — Edokter • Talk • 14:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

{{infobox Film}} edit

Hi,

This change has the rationale "that causes quite excessive spacing". The spacing in question is the default styling used by {{infobox}}, so I don't think that the consensus is that it's excessive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, infobox does have 5px padding, but with the font-size reduction, and the fact that in {{infobox film}}, each line uses seperate table rows, the spacing became immediately appearent; that's why I reduced it. But please ask on the talk page what others think looks best. — Edokter • Talk • 12:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

For whats its worth I also fully support the restoration of the link but I'm staying away from the project. There was never a clear consensus and actually more people disapproved of its removal than approved. The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

'Hard Knox' issue

Sorry about the wrong referencing, I am new to wikipedia editing and still learning how to contribute correctly. Alexey Morgunov (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That's OK... Bit grumpy because of the flu. — Edokter • Talk • 22:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rosita

Hi - to save us from an edit war which I'm sure neither of us wants to get into, I've raised the Rosita issue on the Doctor Who Project page directing editors to "The Next Doctor" talk page and asking them to read and offer their thoughts. I know I've written there that Wikipedia doesn't work on consensus, but I'm not arrogant enough to assume that consensus isn't important in helping to resolve issues so if the other editors side with you and provide sources I will gladly back down. Thanks. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX in the AN navbox

Hi! I see you reverted my addition of NOINDEX... I think having all the ANI pages not indexed by external search sites is an outstanding idea... so adding NOINDEX to the template itself is a convenient way to achieve that. Perhaps you don't agree? let's talk about it at Template_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard_navbox_all#NOINDEX. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Spin-off companions

Regarding adding Majenta Pryce to the Tenth Doctor page, it's fair enough if we don't do them, but in that case we need to go and remove them from all the Doctors pages, especially the 8th who has a list as long as my arm. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC re: Journey's End IDW notes

I created an RfC to try to deal with that bit about the IDW series' relevancy, to try to drive the discussion out of the edit history. TheGreenFaerae (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox film

Your recent edit appears to have broken the template. Previously the |image_size= parameter would work regardless of whether "px" was used or not; now it only seems to work if "px" is specified, else the image will be displayed at it's full size. PC78 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I did that because in the recent past, bugs were reported that "pxpx" broke images as well. Which of the articles is broken? (At worst, images revert to 200px). — Edokter • Talk • 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wait, I think you're right. It will break any articles where the image is larger than 200px and the |image_size= parameter does not include the "px", but this may be a largely hypothetical concern which in any case is down to an incorrect usage of the parameter. Sorry, my stress levels are running a little high at the moment. PC78 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops... that is true. I'll try finding those. A small sample showed most weren't even using the paramter. — Edokter • Talk • 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is a wikisource search when you need one? — Edokter • Talk • 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Santa's Little Helper.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Santa's Little Helper.gif. 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) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland help

Thanks so much for helping with this. User:SebastianHelm has started the work. Check his contribs to see what he's up to and jump right in! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can immediately see he has much more experience with mediating. What have I gotten myself into? I hope I can make some contribution. — Edokter • Talk • 00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can, you can learn a lot from him. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"What have I gotten myself into?" - Actually, I've been thinking the same! But really, don't worry, we'll get through it alive! :-))

Did you see that I posted the beginning of a conversation with you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel? (I also sent e-mail.) I need you there, and be it only to ensure my neutrality. — Sebastian 16:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I did, and I already left a reply. And thanks for the email. — Edokter • Talk • 16:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Edokter/Archive 3's Day!

User:Edokter/Archive 3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Edokter/Archive 3's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Edokter/Archive 3! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rlevse! I added the userbox. — Edokter • Talk • 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding to the TFD request I posted on ANI. AndrewRT(Talk) 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Edokter • Talk • 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD closure

Hello Edokter. I am puzzled by your closing rationale at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 28#Template:Country data Earth. It seems fairly clear to me that there was consensus to delete Template:Country data Earth, but to keep Template:Country data World. Why did you conclude that both should be kept? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for deleting the Earth template didn't seem all that clear to me. I might have added that a seperate TfD may be a better way to discuss it. I'm no fan of combined nominations. I will ammend my closing to reflect that. — Edokter • Talk • 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Template change request for Template:Infobox Television episode

Given that you have both the necessary access level and what appears to be a fairly high level of knowledge of conditional wikimedia markup (as seen in your recent "'Optionalizing' parameters" edit to Template:Infobox Television episode), do you think you could implement the change requested in Template talk:Infobox Television episode#Prev.2FNext_and_crossover.2Fpilot_episodes? Besides my lack of admin access to change the template, I also lack the necessary in-depth knowledge of wikimedia conditionals.

Thanks. John Darrow (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

{{navbox}} base code issue

Hey,

Could you have a look at the issue described here and see if it's something which could be fixed centrally in the {[tl|navbox}} template logic? Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Edokter • Talk • 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wall-E

Why did you remove my link to the Ralph Eggleston interview on his art direction for Wall-E? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It was already used and listed under references. — Edokter • Talk • 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is not true. I listed it on Wikipedia as an external link before someone shoplifted my intellectual property and added it to the body of the Wikipedia page -- without my permission which is what is called for by my web page. Because it's on the web doesn't mean it's for free use by anyone. I've worked very closely with Pixar on this piece for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean your article was quoted, there is nothing wrong with that, and probably done with a reference; which is a link to that very article. Find the information that came from your article, then click on the number behind that text, and you will jump to a link to that webpage under the References section. — Edokter • Talk • 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address my point. I put my link on first. Whoever changed it didn't contact me to ask for permission to remove my link because they were copying information from my writing. From my web page: NOTICE REGARDING TEXT AND IMAGE COPYRIGHTS: This article and interviews are owned by © Ron Barbagallo. All Rights Reserved. You may not quote or copy from this article without written permission. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Can you please contact me at (email redacted) so we can discuss this. Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is not how Wikipedia works. No-one needs your permission to add information, or remove any of your links. Citing information from your (or any other) article is justified under fair use. As far as I can see, some information was quoted and cited from your page, but has also been rephrased, so no text has been copied verbatim, and the information as such is not subject to copyright. If you still feel copyright has been breached, please read Wikipedia:Copyright problems for further information. — Edokter • Talk • 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So why does someone making a patchwork quilt out of my writing justify my link being removed entirely? I'd like to be able to tell Pixar the reason why imdb gets a link and we didn't. Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is not removed; behind the text is a link, like this: ^[23]. Clicking that will take you to the references, where your article is prominetly linked as item 23. — Edokter • Talk • 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the same thing and you know it. Can you tell me which Wikipedia person took the External Link out so I may contact them? Or, can you please re-post my link back in External Links. It's unbelievably rude to reduce Ralph's involvement and Pixar's commitment to this piece because someone decided to steal from my writing. - Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it not the same? I know it is burried under a mountain of links, but there is no other way. We cannot prefer one link or reference over the other, otherwise, the External links section would be a mountain of links. Therefor we use references. This enables us to link the information in the article to their various sources, which would not be possible by only a link under External links. — Edokter • Talk • 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

It is not the same because it's hidden in what graphic designers call "Mice Type." The Big Cartoon Database contacted me this week to get permission to post and to extrapolate from my text -- with my permission. Please let me [know] which Wikipedia person took the External Link out so I may contact them or, please can you re-post my link back in External Links. I find what you've done to my work offensive. - Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The font is barely smaller then the other text, and with the references linked, easier to find then simple External links. I don't know who took it out (and turned it into a reference); that would take days searching throught the article's history and may have been done months ago. Besides, contributions are done collaboratively; no single editor can be held accountable for their edits with respect to copyright. I also will not put the link back in, as that violates our guidelines (specifically Wikipedia:External links). Your article does not meet those guidelines as it provides no additional general information in relation to the movie, and it would be a duplicate link as it is already present as a reference. If you still see it as a problem, you may raise the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or Talk:WALL-E. — Edokter • Talk • 22:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not the size of the font... "mice type" is a place where things get hidden or buried. It's not a reference to type size only. And, Ralph and I wouldn't have devoted so much time to doing this article -- if there was not a substantial amount of important information for the public. I have links like this one all over Wikipedia for my other works. People in countries all over the world put links to my pages on the External Links section (not in the reference section). This is the only time anyone has done this. Please post someone on the Talk page. I don't know how to do that. - Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If those links refer to the article's primary topic, that is fine. But in this case, your article does not refer to the movie in general, but deals with the design aspect only. That means it cannot be listed under External links per our Wikipedia:External links guideline. Your concern is that you want your link to be more prominent (which in itself may create a conflict of interest). However, wether the link is listed under References or External links, legally it changes nothing. In fact, referencing is legally more sound then just linking, as the information is specifically tied to your article. — Edokter • Talk • 22:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not from my perspective, this is as it is tragically all too often on Wikipedia, one person's personal perspective. I'd also be careful at suggesting conflicts of interest particularly when my site generates no income, and Ralph Eggleston and I received no income to create the piece. I'll simply relay what you've said to my colleagues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Barbagallo (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a personal perspective; it reflects Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And like your site, Wikipedia is a non-profit organization; there is no financial gain in it for us in any way. Conflict of interest does not have to be financial; that policy is intended to fend of any attempt at self promotion. I have read your copyright statement where you disallow "quoting", but allow student to do so. However, copyright does not allow such prerogatives. Quoting other works is generally allowed to anyone wanting to refer to your work. Wikipedia editors know better then everyone how to deal with copyright issues; as Wikipedia's mission is to offer a "free" encyclopedia as is possible, we are very carefull not to trot on anyone's intellectual property.

If you want broader opinion, please post on Talk:WALL-E, the same way you post your mesages here. Also please sign your posts by placing four tildes ~~~~ after your message. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Edokter has done a swell job of explaining Wikipedia is just one of many educational resources that will cite your article Mr. Barbagallo. I found your article via Upcoming Pixar, and I implemented the information as I would with any news article or journal. You must be pleased that others are reading your work and attributing it. Alientraveller (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who images

Well that was a thankless task then. Look at the older version of The Seeds of Doom and tell me it's not better. Forget it.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:AfDM

I have initiated a discussion about the background color at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). You might want to state your case there. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Navbox with collapsible groups}}

I believe I've found a bug of some sort in {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}. The 'state' parameter doesn't seem to do what one would expect when set to 'autocollapse'. I initially discovered this when I used it in {{IRC footer}} but I've been seeing the same problem in other templates that make use of {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} too. Tothwolf (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what is going wrong? At first glance it shows as expected. Note that the collapsible groups are counted as (more then 2) collapsible tables, which makes the navbox itself collapsed by default. — Edokter • Talk • 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The behavior I would have expected would be to autocollapse when there are other navboxes present and otherwise behave the same as {{Navbox}}. I wondered if {{Navbox}} might be what was causing this as one wouldn't expect a subgroup to determine the parent's collapsed mode. The reason I went with {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} were articles like Opera where you don't want to have a huge navbox show by default (without passing the 'state' parameter to {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}, the whole navbox was also shown by default). Some of the smaller IRC client articles don't have stacked navboxes and {{IRC footer}} should be shown by default (with the clients section expanded). Tothwolf (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an inherit limitation of collapsible tables in general. There is no way for the collapse logic to differentiate between navboxes or the nested groups contained within a navbox. The best workaround would be to uncollapse the main navbox and leave the groups as autocollapse. — Edokter • Talk • 17:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So no way to make the autocollapse option work the same way as {{Navbox}}? I considered leaving the parent uncollapsed but that won't work either due to the way some articles make use of the navbar. Have a look at Opera and mIRC and you'll see what I mean. Tothwolf (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The only way to override it (on a per-article basis), is to make the templates accept the state paramter, so you can specify the state in the article itself, by changing
| state = autocollapse
to
| state = {{{state|autocollapse}}}
— Edokter • Talk • 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica

It's not analysis to say that we've only seen 7 Cylons so far. Maybe it's an issue with your English. Analyzing a show means taking something that wasn't clear, and trying to figure out how it works. Saying we've only seen 7 Cylons so far is just stating a fact that's plainly said in the show. And it's important context for casual viewers who might not know or remember that. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that we only saw 7 models fo far is interprative, which falls under anlysis. That is you telling the readers your interpretation, not stating a fact from the plot. It is just encyclopedic in tone. — Edokter • Talk • 00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The past tense is appropriate for their only knowing about 7 models. It's not present knowledge. It was present knowledge before he told them about the the 8th model. But now that he's told them about the 8th model, their only knowing about 7 models is in the past. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that no-one know how he looks like; so still only seven are known. — Edokter • Talk • 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see. You seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not just saying that people don't know what the 8th Cylon looks like. I'm saying that they didn't even know that an 8th Cylon existed. That's the important point. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't already know, note that in the past they've always said there are 12 models of Cylon (the 7 we've met so far plus the final 5). This is the first we heard of a 13th (the 8th one other than the final 5), and that's what made this noteworthy. Not just who he was, but that a 13th Cylon existed. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WALL-E Top ten lists

I think we should keep the top ten critics' lists. You said it appeared in the reviews section but it didn't. The information can give more detailed looks for viewers as it appears in The Incredibles and Ratatouille pages. Mr Vinx (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Navbox edits

Hi, you made some edits to the {{Navbox}} about a week ago, could you revert back to the previous version as it messes up {{Navbox with columns}} (where the columns becomes padded inwards as can be seen in the docs and on the talk section for Navbox i created) — CHANDLER#10 — 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy-melon's Tnavbar edit

Does undoing this edit have any effect on the proliferation of articles in Category:Tnavbar templates using obscure parameters? I noticed this new (hidden) category, which was created by Happy-melon this morning, popping up on some pages I was working on, and I note that the category now contains over 13,000 articles, expanding at the rate of several thousand per hour. Over 1,000 articles were added to it just since I started typing this message. -Dewelar (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. He made those category changes in two seperate edits, which were not reverted. So the categories should still be populated. — Edokter • Talk • 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, then, that my question becomes, "what is the purpose of the category"? It is now populated by over 45,000 articles, including basically every article I've been editing. -Dewelar (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Happy Melon. I think he wants to categorize templates that use decrapated parameters. I don't think he intended articles to be categorized as well. — Edokter • Talk • 01:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did ask him, but he hasn't responded. It's just that I'm in the middle of a large-scale project intended to improve a batch of baseball-related articles, and I was interested in what things might be, as you put it, "decrapated" (a play on deprecated? or just stand-alone, as in, de-crap-ifying? Inquiring minds want to know...), and perhaps I should be changing on these pages. -Dewelar (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... I did mean 'deprecated'. And no, articles are not in scope here. What's going on is purely technical, trying to harmonize the various parameters that templates like {{Navbox}} use. Again, I don't think HM ment for articles to even end up in that category. — Edokter • Talk • 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did consider that perhaps the template might have gotten bogged down with a bunch of useless parameters and, thus, needed a good de-crap-ifying... *grin*

I don't know how easy it will be to clear out all the articles that are accumulating (now past the 53K mark), but hopefully it's not a big issue. My knowledge of Wikipedia's guts is admittedly minimal. Anyway, I'll just ignore that as it comes up from now on. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Template TfD help

Is this [2] [3] something you'd be able help with or is this something that should go straight to DRV etc? I feel like he has wasted a bunch of my time playing games which makes me rather unhappy. I just want to get back to working on these templates and the articles that use them. Tothwolf (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, put it on DRV, as I can see no consensus for deletion. Otherwise, consider working on the template in your userspace. I can move it there if you want. — Edokter • Talk • 16:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry on the template right now since I have a lot of other stuff to work on too but I probably will go ahead and take it to DRV. I wanted a second opinion before I started that process and I may ask for a 3rd opinion from another admin as well before taking it to DRV. If DRV doesn't correct the situation I can always have it moved to userspace then. The way he handled the issue and then treated me just seemed way out of line for what I'd normally have expected. Tothwolf (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Caprica and related issues

Sorry for not making my objectives clearer but I tried to bring some sense into the Caprica mess.

• Somebody filled the article "Caprica" with an article about a not yet finished TV series. I doubt that this TV series is a more notable lemma than the planet that appears in the old Galactica series, the reimagined one and (eponymously) the upcoming series.
• Annoyingly, the item on the dab article linked to location lists that linked back to the article "Caprica", then the article about the series.
• I moved the article about the series back to a clearer lemma and, in order to prepare for articles about Caprica and Caprica City to be created removed the redirects. You caught me in the midst of this process.

Thanks for your contributions afterwards. Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for new fields at Template talk:Infobox

Thanks for considering my request. I noticed that you removed the {{editprotected}}} and marked the request "not done". Does this mean that this is the end of the process.

If this is true is there anywhere I can go to have the outcome reviewed. It is not a trivial request. The template {{infobox mountain}} is in need of a cleanup and it is used in over 6,000 pages. It too uses a photo and a map. If I have no recourse then, in your opinion, would a second meta-template named something like {{infobox2}} be unacceptable.

I understand that the image field is open. But to hang two images and possible captions on it would in my opinion be a kludge. Wiki templates are is full of kludges mostly do to resistance to change. I seems sometimes that everyone is off doing there own thing with more or less success. I was hoping that the appearance of meta-templates would help clean things up a little. I hope that this issue can be resolved. --droll [chat] 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Only the edit request has been denied, but that doesn't mean the issue final. You can alway ask for more input on the talk page, and who knows a better solution is found. — Edokter • Talk • 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Thank you for sorting out the two tables; nice to see Richard Hurndall promoted to top of the 'others' list! I am an original 23rd November 1963 fan and father of a keen son-DW fan!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That may change though; the table should be sorted chronological. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Edokter

--78.152.224.33 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. — Edokter • Talk • 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Television episode

Thanks for adding RPrev and RNext to Template:Infobox Television episode. Sometimes the simplest solutions really are the best ones. John Darrow (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It was sort of born out of necessity. — Edokter • Talk • 15:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

What he said. :) --Amalthea 08:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[temporary talkback fork removed by author]

Heads up

You are being discussed here. I suggested he take it to WP:3RR. I hate it when the discussee is not notified. FYI. --64.85.222.144 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I doubt Jimbo will give it any attention. — Edokter • Talk • 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, ahhh ... nevermind - I see you already know. I tried to add a link to a reference in an attempt to help, but it was simply dismissed as "unreliable". Reading through the page, it looks like 3 or 4 editors have consensus - but I guess one editor wants to contest either the air-date or the production number. I know nothing! ... lol. If there's anything I can do to help, feel free to let me know. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 18:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		Thank you for your code optimization and readability of the new code for the {{talkback}} template. :D Nn123645 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

BSG 2004 episode list

Given how much stuff has been put into the individual episodes, are you worried that redirect nuts like TTN would come in and do it, like what has happened with Entourage and That 70s Show? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, there's always a chance. The besta way to counter that is to make sure they are not just plot summaries. — Edokter • Talk • 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

deleting my additions

I understand if you may feel that Heroes Wiki isn't a reliable source, but in case you didn't notice, one of the additions I made was the upcoming episode I Am Sylar dated to air on April 20. When I originally created that page I sourced Heroes Wiki. Now that NBC has confirmed it through one of the more popular sources of reference used by this site, all of a sudden it becomes acceptible even though the information was available for a longer period of time on a site that's not used because it's a so-called unreliable source. In light of these recent events, you might want to cut Heroes Wiki a little slack and try using their information. If they were right about this one, who knows what else they're right about. SnakeChess511:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is'n't about whether Heroes Wiki is right or not; Wikipedia has to follow the rules about reliable sources and verifiablility. If Heroes Wiki were to publish their sources, things would have been different, but as it stands, we cannot use any of their information. Now that NBC has published the title, both these policies have been met. But please do not add information that cannot be properly sourced in the future. — Edokter • Talk • 14:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Caprica (Infobox) Image

Do you happen to know if and how a cropped screenshot of http://www.scifi.com/caprica/ - showing the Caprica logo and principals - can be used?

Never done it before and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free gets confusing. It's promotional material, but in the form of a cropped screenshot of a (commercial) webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

cars characters

I see you've been going back and forth on the Cars (film) page with Michael Shumacher. The consensus has been to limit THAT page to the primary characters, and then list the other supporting folk on the List of Cars characters page. I believe (without looking, memory failing) that Shumacher made the cut on that page during the recent pruning. If he's not on the List Of... page, then feel free to add him there, but adding him on the primary page seems overkill at this time. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard

• Please note: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Result_22. Black Kite 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing BSG daybreak

Sir would you kindly look at the talk page for the article before deleting part of the outside references article again, thank you.--Collinsas (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I was hoping that you would self-revert this revert, as it is your third for the day, and we are actively engaged in discussion. We don't allow uncited information to be utilized in the wiki, and your edit summary noting that it is verified isn't enough to actually fulfill our verifiability and - as you said in the section immediately above - we have to follow the rules of both verifiability and reliable sourcing.

Since we've had friction before, I think it would be best if we both make an effort to keep things civil, friendly and as friction-free as possible. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

\You need to stop, and now. If you keep edit-warring, i will seek to have you blocked. Use the article discussion page and build a consensus. Please consider this your last warning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, YOU need to stop! You are completely acting against consensus, trying to impose your view of policy on us. You have no intention whatsoever to discuss, so I am not even going to try. — Edokter • Talk • 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am in the article discussion, waiting for you to make an argument that doesn't assume the worst in everyone else. You need to find citations for that info if you want to have it in. I do not have a problem with the info being in the article, so long as it is connected by citation and notability. When ThuranX steps in and agrees with me, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. If you are unwilling to use the discussion page to build a consensus - and let me be clear, you do not have one - you cannot add the uncited material back to the article.

I am very disappointed that you have learned nothing about acting more like an admin. I have reported you at AN/I. You brought this on yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Edokter, there is absolutely no method in the world of reasoning with Arcayne that doesn't involve giving him exactly what he wants. Everyone else is wrong, he is right, and his edit summaries are usually either tagged "wrong" or "sigh", which is extremely condescending. Take a look at the guy's 30 month-long history of abusing others and you'll see it for yourself. Oh, and before I get accused of "wikihounding" (which I probably will because that too is his MO) I came here to leave my comments of support for you before I even saw that he'd already commented in his typical fashion. Erikeltic (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hi Edokter, I've sent you an email regarding the Ireland Collaboration. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you another email. PhilKnight (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rumour mill

Hi, please see the discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials; it's actually a reasonable source, honest! Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Already seen it. — Edokter • Talk • 11:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Edokter. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding BSG episode articles

Just curious why you removed the transcluding of the BSG episode lists I made for seasons 1 and 2, why is it "not safe practice" to do so, when I have noticed that TV shows like LOST and Stargate SG-1 do so with their list. Thanks --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I spent minutes looking in the text for a string before I even noticed the lists were transcluded. S editing wise it is not convenient. There is also the risk of someone removing the <onlyinclude> tags from the lists, which would transclude the entire aricle. Those are ment for templates, and I think it is not a good idea to use such contructs in articles. — Edokter • Talk • 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirects revisited

Hi, Edokter. I see that you deleted the redirect Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special, using the summary "(R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)". That doesn't seem appropriate to me; the redirect was created in July 2008, and most recently restored by Dragons flight in December 2008, with the justification "(redirects are cheap and this name was used internally.)" I agree with that judgment; if nothing else, it's relevant because there was an AfD under that name.

I know that you tend to see redirects as annoying and untidy, but they really are harmless. It might be useful to review the arguments at WP:RFD#HARMFUL and the following sections of that page. WP:RFD#KEEP specifically says not to delete a redirect if "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect." The AfD is an example of that very sort of internal link. I've recreated the redirect. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't change my comments without explanation. It's a minor issue, but this edit made my comment historically inaccurate, since the article was created and AfD'ed under the title Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special. You subsequently moved it to 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who), which is fine — but you could have made that point without altering my comment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More on redirect deletion mania: according to Wikipedia:Most missed articles there were nearly a thousand searches a day for 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who) in 2008. Just because you don't think a redirect is useful, that doesn't mean that it isn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop recreating unused redirects. While it was hot in 2008; the 2009 searches were absolutely zero and has no incoming article links. — Edokter • Talk • 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No incoming article links, but several links from project space discussions. When a page has been moved after discussion, deleting the redirect obscures the history of that discussion. It's a minor point, and not something we should be getting into a fight over, but I think you're misapplying CSD R3 here. If there was discussion about a page move, the redirect should generally be kept. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Links in AfDs can simply be changed (or ammended); so there is no practical reason to maintain these redirects, they're only confusing. — Edokter • Talk • 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're willing to amend all the incoming links from project, user and talk space, then I suppose there's not that much harm in deletion. I still think there's no need to delete either, but it's a stupid thing to get into a revert war about. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Love the new picture on "Planet of the Dead" - well done! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why thanks :) — Edokter • Talk • 10:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks very much! May I also suggest that you unblock Man of wealth and taste, who is/was in exactly the same position as myself? Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. — Edokter • Talk • 15:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-prot

Hmm, I'm not sure I'd have taken it off quite that quickly, given that it was a dynamic IP address! Still, as long as someone's keeping an eye on it, hopefully I don't suppose it matters. Black Kite 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, missed that. However, if it is a dynamic IP, I'll reprotect. But generally, a block and protection is a bit overkill. — Edokter • Talk • 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Special 2009

I think you made a mistake in closing this as speedy delete per A3. A3 does not cover articles which have valid content, even if that content is speculation. I agree that it should be deleted but I think we should use the proper venues and not use speedy criteria that do not fit. Regards SoWhy 12:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Speculation is not valid content (at least that is how I read A3), and every word was speculation. It's a judgment call, I give you that. It was also clear that the snowball was growing. If there are complaints, there is always DRV. — Edokter • Talk • 12:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A3 actually says what is not valid content: "Any article (...) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images". Speculation is not amongst those things, so it cannot be part of A3. Rather, as WP:CRYSTAL which covers speculation, is part of WP:NOT it's actually covered under WP:CSD#Non-criteria and thus not speedy-deletable. Regards SoWhy 12:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got to agree with SoWhy here — even though the discussion was headed for snowball territory, that doesn't justify a speedy closure under A3. It's not a big issue in this case, since the eventual result would have been the same, but in general I think you seem to apply the speedy deletion criteria a bit too loosely. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for helping me out with Persondata !

I can see them now.

Thank you.

Tovojolo (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that my fix works :) — Edokter • Talk • 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:IECOLL

Hi there, as a member of the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, I was wondering are you and your fellow moderators going to be making a statement on the future actions as a result of the statement process? There are many editors waiting and are a bit confused by the lack of action and lack of decision making. A statement of any future action would be greatly appreciated. Regards MITH 15:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edokter, I've sent you an email. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Eclipse

Is there not a way to request a bot to replace The Eclipse with The Eclipse (Heroes)? Might be best to do it now while the number of links for the Tribeca film remains small. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard to do, because there are also links that mistakenly point to that article. — Edokter • Talk • 21:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I created the new film article in a hurry, so when I have a larger chunk of time, I'll do it manually. Was wondering, though, did you think everything on the main disambiguation page is appropriate? "The Eclipse" sounds pretty distinct, and the main page already has quite a few links. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DPAGES. It is customary to disambiguate a subject that starts with or without "The" on one page, as page titles should not start with an article, unless it is part of a proper name. — Edokter • Talk • 23:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it up and redirected The Eclipse to Eclipse (disambiguation). —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw it. Thanks! — Edokter • Talk • 14:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Children of Earth - Day #

Comes from the BFI National film theatre programme. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a138/hingethunder/torchwood-1.jpg Clockwork Apricot (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Public-domain images

As a general rule, public-domain images such as File:USS ALAMO - lsd33 3.jpg do need source information, so that we can verify the claim of public-domain status. --Carnildo (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Edokter,

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

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

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

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

You broke Template:Navbox

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

I already took care of it, when I spotted a report about this on the VPT. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... I mistook that for the navbar template. — Edokter • Talk • 20:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

re {{do list}}

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

You are right that not all parameters are evaluated, but it is the nesting itself that is worrysome; the preprocessor still has to parse the entire first evaluation, which contains all others. If there are lots of items, it has to recurse through a maximum of 50 levels, with is very memory intensive. I may be wrong, perhaps you can best ask for advice about performance impact on Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). — Edokter • Talk • 14:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that. I like the idea (which is why I made the template), but if it's too processor intensive I should scrap it. thanks. --Ludwigs2 14:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(update) HappyMelon, at least, seems to think it's not a problem, but I'll wait till the silliness below is dealt with and we can discuss the issue further. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Violation of the three revert rule on Companion (Doctor Who). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

• Note to reviewing administrator - please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Lynskeyium reported by Edokter (Result: 24h each) for background. Black Kite 18:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Edokter's analysis. Blocks are to prevent harm to the project, and Edokter was editing for the good of the project. The other editor was one of those bad-faith uncommunicative fans of which Doctor Who seems to produce so many, and was being disruptive. The day when admins are blocked for removing obvious drivel from pages, in the face of ignoring users, is a very sad one. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would expect an admin, even more than other users, not to (a) enter into an edit war, and (b) make five reverts of an edit that, whilst not exactly useful, certainly wasn't vandalism. Not to mention that the other editor did not make any edits between Edokter warning him of 3RR and then reporting him to the admins board. Black Kite 18:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Semantics... I did warn the editor for posting incorrect information, and he was warned several times by ohter editors; the editor knew full well he was not to add the information back. And filing 3RR takes time. — Edokter • Talk • 18:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Edit warring without communicating is equal to vandalism." Could you show me the policy, the one I supposedly need to brush on, that actually says this? Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Edit war don't seem to agree with you. Thanks in advance, - auburnpilot's sock 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Reinserting nonsense in bad faith (evident from not communicating), despite multiple warnings from several editors is considered valdalism. The block still does not prevent anything and therefor alone unjustified. — Edokter • Talk • 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I don't think this is a bad block. It may not be preventative, but either would it have been to block the other party and not you, especially as you may have precipitated the situation by the reverts. Personally I would have stopped before 3RR as it wasn't obvious vandalism. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well

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

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

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

To be fair, whie this is a punitive and incredibly poorly thought-out (due to the disruptive nature of the other user involved) block, it's not an ArbCom issue and I don't think that they'd accept the case.

That said, still not impressive IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to uphold the principle that any block not made to prevent any action is purely punitive, and therefor out of policy. Even Nja247 says that this is not a preventative block. And I do happen to be particularly alergic to such blocks, so I simply have no choice. Black Kite can still redeem himself by unblocking me, otherwise, he will be admonished. — Edokter • Talk • 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The block remains preventative because your comments here indicate that you would continue to edit-war in the same vein if unblocked.  Sandstein  22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish to make clear that I said 'may not', and I meant for it to mean exactly that. I also said I believe you precipitated the issue with your reverts. Further, the do this 'or else' behaviour is alarming coming from an admin. Chillll, Nja²⁴⁷ 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I duely realize I broke 3RR, and I will refrain from any action against this user; in the future I will ask other admins to deal with it. The fact that I reported a 3RR report should have indicated that I had no further interest in persuing the matter. — Edokter • Talk • 22:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You would probably have helped your case if you had filed a 3RR report two reverts earlier. I have been on the receiving end of a similar block as yourself, and I (as do you) only had myself to blame for revert/edit warring past the "3" rule. You should have filed a 3RR or dispute resolution case sooner, then you would most likely had the admins on your side. For the record, I agree with your reverts 100%, but as a seasoned editor you should have been more aware of the rules in dealing with the issue. Try to keep a cool head, count those reverts and request assistance if need be, there are plenty of editors here who can take over if you hit the 3RR :) magnius (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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