User talk:TreasuryTag/Archive4

Martha Jones' blog

Hey. I'm actually disagreeing with you on Talk:The Family of Blood about whether the blog is reliable - it is, as it's BBC run (proven by the early 42 blog post). Here's a nice canon level thing I made on my interpretation, at least: (based on Star Wars canon)

• Absolute canon: The episodes of Doctor Who, Torchwood, The Sarah Jane Adventures, K-9 and Company, and the word of production staff.
• Semi-canon: Ancillary media: tie-in websites, books, audio plays: Example: Torchwood, Lungbarrow, Jubilee, ...ish
• Non-canon: Spoofs, and anything retconned or contradicted out. Examples: Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death, Shada, and possibly some elements of Human Nature.

Of course, that's not official, but I think we can use the blog if the episodes themselves don't contain information we need, as the blog is official. Will ^(talk) 18:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I know, that's why I included the canon levels :) Will ^(talk) 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am RambutanWP on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/RambutanWP. Thanks. --Rambutan (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Get a diff. link for this by clicking history after your edit and then '[c]ompare selected versions'. Please do not use any other method to get the diff or this system will probably refuse it.

blanking talkpages

Don't be a hypocrite Rambutan.--MrClaxson 13:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary Rambutan, I have made worthy contributions. You seem to go around reverting peoples edits when you don't agree with them. Either you have a superiority complex or you are obviously a disruptive wikipedian who favours inciting trouble. Now, you are being irritating and have do not have time to argue. I'm blanking my talkpage whether you like it or not. I do not want your misguided comments hanging around.--MrClaxson 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations have crossed over the border into ridiculous. You have no leg to stand on. Leave me alone.--MrClaxson 16:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate an apology for your accusations and general antagonism towards me.--MrClaxson 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling good faith edits vandalism

I told you just two days ago that you needed to stop calling good faith edits vandalism. this is not vandalism. this is not vandalism. Using the word vandalism, and putting stock warning templates on users pages does not help. You need to discuss your problems on article talk pages and reach a consentual solution. PouponOnToast 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the first edit removed the material. Please be more careful with automated tools, and be certain to update your copy of TW - it should have edit summaries like this one, and should substitue user warning templates. It's possible the edit you were referring to was this one which is also not vandalism. PouponOnToast 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stick to monitoring the Dr. Who pages, as I suspect you are more often than not right. The problem is that you let the minor mistake of accidentally warning someone for what was probably just stupidity escalate into this hubaloo. Take a step back when you start to feel like you're feeling now, and consider if you're doing the right thing in the long run or the thing that feels good for right now. PouponOnToast 16:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:MrClaxson

Please don't editwar over other editor's talkpages. If he wants to blank the page, there is nothing that says he is not allowed to do so. Edit warring in other editor's userspace is unecessary and usually escalates into the realm of disruption, so it is a good idea to avoid doing so. Thanks, --Isotope23 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:AWBroundel.jpg

Well, you taken it. But you should know you taken logo! Like when I take screenshot for Windows OS, I can't see this GFDL! Thank you --OsamaK 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Saxon

The sentence still isn't cited. Matthew 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can cite properly using the name function (i.e. <ref name="(name)" (/)>) Matthew 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"What secrets lie at the heart of the Valiant? What is the power of the Archangel? And most importantly, who is Mr. Harold 'Harry' Saxon?" looks quite uncited to me, the rest is cited, though. Matthew 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Then cite the radio times, and cite Saxon's name, simple (for anybody else, anyway). For that matter there shouldn't be any questions within the article, we're an encyclopedia, not a FAQ. Matthew 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What secrets lie at the heart of the Valiant? What is the power of the Archangel? And most importantly, who is Mr. Harold "Harry" Saxon? For when his reign of terror as the Prime Minister begins, and contact with an alien race, the Toclafane, is announced, an extra-temporal trap begins to close.[2]

I see a citation for "For when his reign of terror as the Prime Minister begins, and contact with an alien race, the Toclafane, is announced, an extra-temporal trap begins to close.", but none for "What secrets lie at the heart of the Valiant? What is the power of the Archangel? And most importantly, who is Mr. Harold "Harry" Saxon?"

"And I consider this Wikistalking", well that's a big accusation for such a small person. I don't know if you've noticed but there's a link to that image right above this topic. Your tenacity to call a person who understands policy better then you a "vandal" or a "wikistalker", well it's frightfully spooky. Matthew 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not my obligation, I know, it's yours -- perhaps I'll do it once I've rewrote the section. I'm pretty much always nice, to people who are nice. "As for the stalking, if you poke around my talkpage looking for things to stir up", that's another big accusation -- I really must urge you to assume good faith, one could get the impression you're flaming. Matthew 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Why did you click on the link to the image" I thought it was something to do with AWB, which I am interested in. "but it's not my responsibility either" You're the one seeking to include... I'm the one seeking to remove. And yes, I'm a very popular person :). You're still quite young as a Wikipedian, I imagine in a years time you'll be just as popular (I mean look, you're already on your way ^^^!) Matthew 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that :-). Have a good evening, Matthew 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Okay, you should have access to #wikipedia-en-functionaries (though it seems to be empty currently). Regarding #vandalism-en-wp, I'm not sure... can you join at all? If so, you can say "!staff" to get ops there...? --Interiot 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:AWBroundel.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AWBroundel.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...

Sorry if it seemed as if I was trying to vandalise the page but since I saw the family in the 'next time' bit of Utopia I assumed they would be in both episodes not just the next one.--Wiggstar69 20:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

When I re-watch the episode I'll see which family members are there and those who are not in the 'next time' then i'll be able to source it, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.--Wiggstar69 20:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Master

Listen to the episode... when the Master says "Use my name" - the Doctor replies "Master". (This isn't the reason I made the change, as I've just noticed it now while dealing with the article. However, it does illustrate the point.) Let's discuss this on the talk page rather than through the article please. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Someguy

You don't boilerplate respected editors who clearly know guidelines/policy, simple. Matthew 10:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No you can take it to mean we needn't be perfect as we're a Wiki. I'm wondering how this is relevant to Someguy? Matthew 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia needs you, if there's a misspelling fix it, or somebody else will (if it bothers you so much spending your time fixing issues). Nobody is obligated to be perfect in their grammar/spelling -- this is a wiki, anybody can build upon or fix content -- the world will not end due to a misspelling. Matthew 11:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not obligated to spend your life using "Twinkle", Wikipedia doesn't need you -- it won't collapse because you're not here to revert. Matthew 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

You have made some agressive and highly challenging remarks towards me. I could easily say that you have irritated me but I won't, I refrain from attacking you as I respect wikipedia policy when it comes to civility. I'm not vandalistic Rambutan and neither are you, so I'm letting this go now.--MrClaxson 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on Utopia (Doctor Who)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --slakr 19:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your defensiveness, but please do not bite the messenger. I'm only here to help, I assure you. Remember, you could have just as easily been 3RR blocked. Instead, I wanted to warn you and assume good faith that you had simply gotten caught up in the heat of argument and/or were unaware of the full 3RR policy. Therefore, I implore you to please re-read the three-revert rule policy. In brief:

1. "Reverting" is defined as "undoing the actions of another editor or editors"
2. The three-revert rule applies to all of your reverts on the page to other editors' contributions-- not just one particular user's. The following are your reverts, with the newest first. Note: all of these occurred from at least 00:01, 17 June 2007 to 19:00, 17 June 2007, which is clearly less than 24 hours.
   1. good faith edit.
   2. your reversion as vandalism
   3. another which you marked as vandalism
   4. another which you marked as vandalism from Finegold13 (talk · contribs)
   5. self-labeled good faith edit you reverted by Deej30 (talk · contribs) (second one, directly after).
   6. self-labeled good faith edit you reverted by Deej30 (talk · contribs) (first one).
   7. replaced removed spoiler warning by Chris 42 (talk · contribs).
   8. reverted good faith edit. Professor Yana and Master are synonymous, however this was cursory-- I don't know the show well enough, but at face value it's good faith.
   9. self-labeled good faith edit by Hughcharlesparker (talk · contribs).
   10. self-labeled good faith edit by Someguy0830 (talk · contribs).
   11. self-labeled good faith edit.
   12. insulted while reverting edit by Matthew (talk · contribs).
   13. self-labeled good faith edit.
   14. belittled an editor while reverting.
   15. your admission that it's your 3rd edit of the day while reverting Ckatz (talk · contribs)'s edits. I'll stop here.

   Therefore, even if the edits you labeled as "vandalism" above actually were vandalism-- which they were not--then you still would have far-surpassed the 3RR limit.

3. There are exceptions to 3RR. You may permissibly bypass 3RR under the following conditions:
   1. "removing simple and obvious vandalism." Check the official vandalism policy for what vandalism is and is not. Some of your edits that I did not list above did fulfill this exemption, they were not tallied toward your big three, and they were therefore not listed above.
   2. "reverts to remove clear copyright violations or clearly libelous material." Not one of the edits posted above were libelous or copyright issues.
   3. "reverts to remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons." It's a work of fiction and not a biography.
   4. "reverts to undo actions performed by banned users or currently blocked users evading their block;" None of the users above were blocked; in fact, some were prolific contributors.
   5. "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space." This is an article namespace and this exemption does not apply.

Despite of all of this, you still felt the urge to post threatening warnings to the user talk pages of those whose edits you reverted. Regarding your defense of this, you claimed, "Plus, my warnings to the IP of Giles the Penguin were valid: he kept re-adding a non-existent link to the page, despite by constant reversions and gradually less polite warnings - if he ignores notes not to do something, it is not good faith." Which might actually be correct; but, in this case, the door swings both ways-- you, too, were reverting all of the edits that the other user made, and you had, by the time I got to the user, already far exceeded your 3RR limit. The state of affairs where two editors are reverting each other's changes continually is commonly called an edit war. I appropriately warned you about edit warring in hopes of preventing more biting of the newbies, and even more importantly in hopes of preventing you from being blocked-- especially since you seem so enthusiastic about both the site and the topic. It's a rare thing to find truly hard-working and driven people such as yourself, and I as well as countless other editors appreciate that.

Thus, in order to avoid this situation in the future, please consider requesting page protection, or ideally coming to a rational, logical middle ground with those with whom you disagree through dispute resolution.

If you have any further questions, comments, or complaints, please do not hesitate to contact me or stick a {{helpme}} tag on your talk page. Thank you, and best of luck. --slakr 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted no single "thing" more than three times, That might be the case, but that's not the policy. The policy is, "whether involving the same or different material each time." It doesn't matter if you revert, let's say for an unrelated example "apple" back to "banana" five times or not. What matters is if you revert anything on the page more than three times in one day (with the exception of those things that I mentioned earlier and of course your own edits). Trust me, it seems like a weird policy, and you'd be surprised how many exceptionally good editors get snagged on it, including quite a few present-day admins back when they were still learning the ropes. That's why I was trying to warn you of the danger so that you don't end up making that mistake =) Cheers. --slakr 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your revision to The Master re: modelling of regenerations

At 07:21, 17 June, you added a "citation needed" note to the article about the "Doctor Who" character, "The Master", with a summary reading in part: "How can he model regenerations?" I can't tell you just how it is done, but there is sufficient precedent that it can be done. There were the various "appearances" offered to the second Doctor to choose from to be his next incarnation at the conclusion of his trial in "The War Games" episode 10. Later, and, admittedly quite puzzling to me, through much of the the third Doctor's last story, "Planet of the Spiders," another Time Lord has a projection of his next form seeming to be a separate person. Then at the beginning of "Destiny of the Daleks," Romana "tries on" (this phrase is actually used there) several possible new bodies before settling on her first choice, the image of Princess Astra from the previous story, "The Armageddon Factor." That one had to be custom modelling, because it was explicitly said to be deliberate. Like a number of other things in "Who," while we have no idea how, there is no question that it is. As for the rest of the passage in question, I certainly don't dispute your request of a citation for it. Ted Watson 20:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because it's original research. Sorry.--Rambutan (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Master (Doctor Who)

If you had said my addition about the Master no longer looking like svengali in appearance was too trivial for the article I might not be writing this right now. But you said it was speculation... what kind of BS is that???? how could it be speculation... we've seen footage from all 3 episodes that Simm is in and at no point does he have a beard and black outfit. Wikipedia updates should not be judged based on beauracratic nonsense.--Dr who1975 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's speculation and/or original research to guess what someone's character will be like without a reliable source saying that it was explicitly true and deliberate.--Rambutan (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes... which is exactly why, in the end, I limited the description to appearance, appearance is very cut and dry, yet still you removed it.--Dr who1975 17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still speculation if it uses the phrase "appears to be". It must be confirmed. See here, it may interest you.--Rambutan (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No

Don't leave personal attacks on my talk page. I also suggest you read up on what talk pages are for. They are precisely for leaving comments on. >Radiant< 12:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no. You don't WP:OWN your userspace, and if you are serious about proposing something it is highly inappropriate to remove dissenting comments. >Radiant< 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you should move comments, not remove things that disagree with you. In fact you should move that entire "comment" section to the talk page, because that's precisely the point of talk pages. You can't have it both ways: you can't pose a proposal to the community and simultaneously entitle yourself to revert war over it to remove things you don't like. If you were at all interested in forming consensus on the matter, you would realize that. >Radiant< 12:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Last of the Time Lords"

Telling people who are being civil to you to "button it" just because you disagree with their point of view is not being respectful to other users, and does not engender a civil and constructive debate. Nor for that matter does deleting comments that you do not agree with. In the interests of not fuelling the edit war which you seem hell bent on provoking I will not post further on that page, but would suggest you use more polite and constructive language when attempting to resolve a dispute with a fellow user. 83.105.96.154 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. My original comment was in support of another user. Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge and once my son is old enough to use a PC I intend to encourage him to use it. However I do not want him clicking on a link that takes him to a site with gay porn on. This is not an anti-gay statement - I would make the same comment if for example a link were posted to pictures of Freema Ageyman appearing in Playboy. (Not that she has to the best of my knowledge I hasten to add)! The user Will then removed my comments on the basis that it was tantamount to censorship.

I know that different phrases mean different things in different parts of the World but where I live (Birmingham UK) the term "button it" is being quite rude and hence my suggestion that you do not use that phrase again. 83.105.96.154 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on this I am afraid. I have suggested on the Talk page of "Last of the Time Lords" a compromise. I assume no one can object to that. Please stop the petty edits of my posts - yes I forgot to sign it - I am only human! You would do better to post the edit I proposed which is constructive than try to engineer another argument after I have continually offered you the olive branch of peace! 83.105.96.154 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my signature on the "Last of the Time Lords" discussion page (I only put it in because you complained) and then called me disruptive? 83.105.96.154 18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not lie - you deleted it at 18.16 - the edit history clearly shows that. I tried to add the comment again with a signature but I couldn't because you were too busy repeated editing my posts causing an edit conflict. When you had finally finished I edited my own post by adding a signature. I cannot believe that Wikipedia does not allow you to edit your own posts with a signature. I cannot believe that I am having this argument with you. Wikipedia is not your private domain - do not treat it as such - have a bit more respect for your fellow users - in the real world disputes like this are resolved by compromise - I have suggested one which is perfectly reasonable unless you are for some reason seeking to advertise the site that I object to that article linking to? 83.105.96.154 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please either remove your statement about me making rude and vulgar comments or post links to the evidence on my user page (which I can tell you now you won't find because I didn't make any. Thanks.83.105.96.154 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that is rude and vulgar and I fully agree that the comment should have been removed BUT it wasn't posted by me - check the signatures. I will repeat - please remove your comment. 83.105.96.154 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you have made a mistake - one that is defamatory to me and I have asked you to correct it. That is not an unreasonable request. I am prepared to let bygones be bygones but not while that statement remains on a wiki page about me. 83.105.96.154 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My aim is not to get the link removed - a third party has ruled over that discussion and I accept that you were right. I am not arguing any more - that's why I said "Fair enough" on the talk page. 83.105.96.154 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think it is conducive to the good of Wikipedia to have bad feelings between us? I don't. Whether I like it or not it is going to cloud my judgment about your posts and edits and that would be a pity because some of the stuff you do on here is very good. You seem to spend an awful lot of time correcting other people's mistakes, all I am asking is for you to spend a moment to correct one of your own. There is no reason to escalate this, we are both Wikipedians and we are both Doctor Who fans - that's at least 2 things we have in common. 83.105.96.154 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand the TW reversion

Sorry I was in the middle of an edit (merging two articles of same person) see John Anthony Copeland, Jr. and John A. Copeland, and checking spelling, etc. when after 5 seconds the article was reverted. I don't understand and will try to make a sensible article out of it. Smallbones 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes

That's very funny and all, but is there some way we can actually get you to think about things rather than kneejerk responding to them? I'm sure you'd like to ignore me and everything, but the point is that you've been needlessly incivil and biting newbies. Now you can think about that and try to do better, or I can give you an official warning and block you if you do it again. Your choice, really. >Radiant< 09:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're certainly allowed to warn spammers for spamming. However, you shouldn't give people escalating warnings for removing earlier warnings. In essence doing so dilutes the actual message, which is that he shouldn't be spamming. >Radiant< 09:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thank you 2

No problem, just glad to repay the favor. All of these page blankings come from a vandal using a dynamic AT&T IP. If you see him acting up again, don't bother with the warnings, go straight to WP:AIV. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said: you're welcome. Little bleeder appears to be shifting IP addresses, though. Mark H Wilkinson 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Issuing block messages

Hey Rambutan, please don't issue block messages when you haven't blocked yourself - gives the wrong impression. Thanks! Riana ⁂ 09:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I know :) Don't worry about it, it's not a big deal. Cheers, Riana ⁂ 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool username...

Rambutan is the best. Have you ever been interested in the Wikiproject Indonesia? We need editors! And a photo I took - now on Javanese people - although I cropped most of the rambutan out for WP. Merbabu 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wigmore chart

It's a bit lengthy and I haven't got round to the article yet. The book by Anderson cited in the stub is probably the most accessible description. Cutler 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rambutan. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you were recently blocked for various things (including revert warring), and that block was only lifted because you agreed to stop, not because the block was misplaced.

Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Daniel 07:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

3-parter

Hi, I know it is a 3-part story. But I thought that the previous statement said that it was "the first 3-part story in the revived series of Doctor Who". And it isn't the first 3-parter - Aliens of London, World War 3 and Boom Town were a 3-parter, and also in the revived series of Doctor Who. So sorry, but that's what I thought it said. Whovian2711 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't quite understand what it meant Whovian2711 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply removal

I'm not sure how that happened - I did not touch your reply. Must have been a SNAFU with my browser or the server. Very sorry, in any case. Phil Sandifer 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sound of Drums protection

No. I really do think it important that the articles be freely editable when the episode airs. Yes, there will be crap rammed through, but we don't protect the main page articles and other far more high profile articles. Prominant articles, while they are targets of vandalism, are also the most important ones to have open. Phil Sandifer 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It might well improve a bit faster, but I'm willing to take an eventualist approach to it. Phil Sandifer 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The MrClaxson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Comment on Your Fan C*** page

I reverted the comment because it is relevant. You started that argument with a personal attack on the postings of Claxxson. He has a right of reply on the issue whether he is right or wrong. He says its personal - if its not prove it. You are hardly a neutral person in this debate - I reverted the edit because I think I have more impartiality on this issue than you do. Now please revert back to my edit. Kelpin 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my first question. Why did you do the revision I gave an example of? Kelpin 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If those are the best examples you can come up with, I'd say that Claxson made a very good point with the comment you deleted. His postings may not be perfect (who's are?) but most of them do make a contribution to Wikipedia. I think your vendetta with him is clouding your judgment and you need to step back. Kelpin 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you cannot be serious with the Yana / Master picture. If you have any doubts that it was the Master than regenerated you were not watching the episode closely enough. If you didn't have any doubts it was the Master you shouldn't have reverted it back to Professor Yana. Kelpin 18:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd read my original comment you'd see that I said that a lot of your revisions improve the pages, I have no doubt that without them a lot of the Doctor Who pages would look worse than they do now. My concern is that you are over editing and letting personal feelings cloud your judgment with them. Kelpin 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

re: vandalism on Jo O'Meara's page by 81.98.183.116 Nothing could be further from the truth - I actually fixed the page as there was about 2 paragraphs of text not showing on the page as the link was written incorrectly - also I corrected some childish spelling mistakes (aswell is 2 words not one! and "should have" should not be writeen "should of".

I was not logged on at the time so my user ID was 81.98.183.116. If you go to the prior version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_O%27Meara&oldid=139459787 and then click on edit this page you will see 2 paragraphs of text that arent in the article as a result of the bad link. Please be more careful when accusing people of vandalism. Breed3011 23:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

Do you like it? Will ^(talk) 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, the font is smaller than expected... might use Haettenscwheiler. Will ^(talk) 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, check it out again, then refresh it a few times. Will ^(talk) 00:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cryptic message

It's quite a long story -- which should only be short. In summary: it started in October 2006 over an unencyclopaedic trivia section -- a guy became very possessive over it. Therein him and his friends began harassing myself and Will. The main account was blocked indef. in February, his "friends" live on -- they occasionally pop up. I've long suspected it to be them who are harassing me off-wiki. Matthew 08:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your speedy template that you placed on App-o-rama

Hello! We invite everyone to contribute to our encyclopedia, and appreciate your enthusiasm in patrolling new pages. However, I have removed the speedy deletion tag you put on App-o-rama, because I felt the page didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion . Please read up on about criteria for speedy deletion if you haven't read it, or if you have any questions or doubts before placing the tag. Thank you. Evilclown93_(talk) 17:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove talk page comments

Look, I know you dislike fannish discussion of Doctor Who episodes on the episode talk pages, but removing talk page comments is really far beyond what WP:NOT prescribes here. I would greatly prefer to not have to block you for disruption, but your actions on these articles are rapidly nearing the point of doing more harm than good. Phil Sandifer 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You also seem to be reverting non-vandalism edits with Twinkle, which mirrors the administrator rollback functions. This is also bad. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are also forbidden, and Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is widely considered a bad idea. Phil Sandifer 02:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would personally say that it's incivil to use automated rollbacks of any sort for non-vandalism. Certainly things like [1] are inappropriate, though - even if the edit is not identified as vandalism, the uncommented automatic revert is equivalent to misuse of administrative reverts. Phil Sandifer 12:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've reminded you before about not using automated tools for non-vandalism reverts. In particular, it's very, very important to explain, in English, why are reverting someone's edit. It's a matter of civility.. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On your repeated inappropriate removal of talk page discussions, your use of unsightly formatting, and your continued abuse of automated revert tools, I'd like to just ask you to slow down. Throwing your weight around like this isn't making Wikipedia a better place, and disruptive editing like this is blockable. Please stop. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Clangers

Apologies, it's not the fact file, it's the BBC classic episode guide (under Myths):

"The Master watches The Rock Collector episode of Clangers on a television in his prison cell and fails to realise that it is a children's puppet show until this is pointed out to him by Colonel Trenchard. (The Master fully realises the nature of what he is watching. His comment to Trenchard that the Clangers seem to be 'a rather interesting extraterrestrial life-form' is intended to be a joke, and his expression clearly shows his frustration at Trenchard's lack of a sense of humour when he takes it literally.)"

--77.99.30.226 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the clip could go either way (so it seems to me, I don't know if it's more obvious in the context of the episode), it seems like we should go with the BBC guide, particularly given it makes a specific observation of the myth. As a side note, watching the episode last night without having seen the Clangers thing, I instantly took it that the Master was being ironic (he also made a positive comment about Earth at the same time, suggesting he knew it was fiction). Not to mention how stupid the Master would have to be to take it seriously, given he knows Earth's first contact hasn't properly happened yet. --77.99.30.226 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I sourced the Clangers thing, but you didn't like that. I'm really not that fussed. I took it out to avoid the conflict altogether, since it's simply a difference of interpretation, and not, in my view, worth noting, not beyond him enjoying the clips, anyway. --77.99.30.226 17:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought you meant our discussion. I know how to source, but I've only removed the bit about the Master's mistake once a while back; I'm not the IP who recently did it. --77.99.30.226 17:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for 24 hours for repeated removal of talk page comments. Phil Sandifer 06:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD

It doesn't require me to do anything. There's also some operative words: "Please consider adding", not "Please add immediately". You know of the TfD anyway, so no: I won't notify you. Matthew 08:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you keep repeating it yourself it may become true. Matthew 08:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vanna (band) edits

Why does my edits to the Vanna page keep getting switched because if you look at it now it has the same history paragraph on it twice and no discography so when I try and fix the problem it gets switched back so can you please tell me the proper way to handle the situation? Mart2023 10:30 June 25th 2007

Blacklisting

It looks like you were blocked for a while, so I guess you've been automatically blacklisted. If you are a registered user on the channel (i.e. have a voice), simply remove yourself using "computer bl del Rambutan", if you aren't it will expire in a day or two, or you can ask someone else on the channel to remove you. I'll not have access for a few hours and even when I do, I don't know if I will get chance to go on line. --pgk 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There should be details of how to get registered in the IRC channel topic. --pgk 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please note that removal of talk page comments under WP:NOT, in addition to being a bad idea, is not protected by WP:3RR. Phil Sandifer 16:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a warning per your removals of yesterday, where you did go over 3. Note that the 3RR does not apply to individual pieces of content - every time you remove a talk page comment, you are reverting. Phil Sandifer 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not seeing where you are getting that interpretation of Help:Reverting. As for ther est, if you want to violate policy on the belief that you will be unblocked, I cannot stop you, but this does not seem wise. Phil Sandifer 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Don't do X" does not immediately equate with "Remove all X." That's the basic problem. Phil Sandifer 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Witty death threat?

What's "witty" about the comment in this edit? Looks like a death threat to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Just in case, I've removed the menacing part of that comment. We don't want anyone else to have the same misinterpretation I did. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock 2

You came by and added a 1= into my unblock template? Que pasa? Were you trying to unblock me? 24.160.241.190 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC) AKA User talk: 24.160.247.6

Oh, please. This message is hardly vandalism. Take your warning and put it someplace it will do some good. Like on a vandal's talk page. 24.160.241.190 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really as naughty as tossing phony "You're going to be blocked!" messages around. Cut that out. Actually, cut that out, and leave an apology on my talk page. There are enough people who think I'm a vandal just on the basis of posting under an IP address; they don't need your encouragement. 24.160.241.190 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, forget it. I just blanked your warning. Apparently that's allowed on Wikipedia now. Who knew? 24.160.241.190 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR Block

I have blocked you for 36 hours for violating the 3RR on two articles.

The Sound of Drums: [2] [3] [4] [5]

Master (Doctor Who): [6] [7] [8] [9]

Although all of these edits are unquestionably in good faith and I agree with them, none of them are vandalism, and none of the articles fall under WP:BLP, and so no exceptions under WP:3RR apply. Considering that you had been warned earlier today about 3RR violations from yesterday, I feel the lengthened block is appropriate. Phil Sandifer 22:59, 25 June 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

All edits were in good faith, and none were edit-warring, presumably the whole point of the 3RR

Decline reason:

Almost all 3RR violations are done in good faith, the user believes what they are doing is right for the encyclopedia, but that does not mean that the 3 revert isn't applicable to these reverts. After reviewing the block, I fully agree that they were made in good faith, but they were still edit warring in nature so I am decling your unblock. — Ryan Postlethwaite 21:32, 26 June 2007 (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.

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd edit

Hi, I noticed this edit, made a few days ago now. In it you remove content from an article that refers to the name "Mal Loup" and the fact that it's French for "Bad Wolf". Your edit summary caught my eye: "I don't speak French". Couldn't you have left this edit to someone who does speak French? --Tony Sidaway 10:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I think he made that edit to show that people who don't understand French, may not know if the information is reliable or not, which is the reason that the edit was labeled unsourced... if that makes any sense. Sorry to butt in, if you require an answer from Rambutan. --DarkFalls 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a shot, but that really doesn't make sense to me. It's not as if French were this really obscure, exotic language only spoken by a few scholars. The text said that Mal Loup is French for bad wolf and anybody without a GCSE in French can check it by typing it into Google. It's not good French, mind you. C'est français très, très mauvais. .--Tony Sidaway 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that bad, although it is non précis. It may be my opinion, but many people won't be bothered to check if the translation is correct... As it is said, nous vivons dans un monde paresseux. --Dark Falls ^talk 06:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:AIV

Template:AIV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Ryan Postlethwaite 11:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)