![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
Don't be a hypocrite Rambutan.-- MrClaxson 13:39, 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 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)
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)
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)
The sentence still isn't cited. Matthew 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
<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? 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?"
You keep telling yourself that :-). Have a good evening, Matthew 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
You don't boilerplate respected editors who clearly know guidelines/policy, simple. Matthew 10:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
Do you like it? Will ( talk) 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for repeated removal of talk page comments. Phil Sandifer 06:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
What's "witty" about the comment in this edit? Looks like a death threat to me. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
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.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)