User talk:Watcher4200

So, is that my picture?

No, that picture is not of me, but a couple "Mad Scientists" whom I have great respect for... Are their names lost on other contributors to this wiki? It matters not, I know who the picture is of. If anyone would like to try to identify them them here, I'll respond to your guesses. Watcher4200 00:15, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

What am I doing here?

I came here looking for a forum to discuss Doctor Who and Torchwood issues and episodes. I was initially very intrigued by the "Plot Holes and Discontinuities" pages, which are somewhat difficult to distinguish from the "Talk" pages. In any event, I'm very impressed by the amount of work that has gone into this site (but less so with some of the recent updates, or lack thereof).

I plan to add a few things, to figure out how things are done...

After adding a few, I seem to be "moving up" on the list of contributors - which I find a little disconcerting since I don't consider myself a "serious" contributor. Watcher4200 00:07, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Watcher4200 user talk!

Who is it?

• Internal pages

• Manual of Style
• Forums
• Recent changes
• User page policy

• External Wikipedia pages

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial

If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on here.

Lynn Peterfield edit:

I have a tendency to go through article and chop out superfluous words. The change you cite falls into that category almost every time because, as I am sure you have noticed, most people here do not write precisely. I can see a very slight and subtle shift in meaning in your construction and if you actually intend that, by all means, shift it back.

I am here to help, not to beat up on people. I know that watching one's writing edited is a traumatic experience. I still recall the tears I held back, oh, thirty-eight years ago, when a competent copy editor blue-pencilled an article he had requested from me and handed it back as advice, with the suggestion that if he had missed anything, I should make the revisions myself. What was worse was that he was right in every particular. It was a humbling and helpful lesson. But I also learned that when I was right and the editor was wrong, a simple /stet/ would serve. There are rules in writing that should almost invariably be observed, but may be intelligently broken. Your version is not a mistake, but, as I have said, usually it is used as a sense-free bit of extra verbiage.

I should warn you that, judging by most of the people who contribute, the difference will be unnoticed, but it still behooves us to do a job as well as we can. I offer my apologies for any trauma, and hope that you can do something with the word "rendition" while you are at it. I haven't seen the series yet -- I'm waiting for it to show up on dvd in the US so I can get through it as fast as I can. In the meantime, it looks like the wrong word, although, of course, viewing the episode may provide a precise meaning -- which should be explained.

In the meantime, I appreciate the punctillio of your note, which speaks of your respect for yourself and of me, even if the latter is not always deserved. Boblipton 01:48, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

I understand and agree. As someone who has my own professional work "peer reviewed", I think that I understand the benefits and pitfalls (and inevitable personality conflicts) inherent in such a process. I fully recognize that "I speak differently than other people" and it is certain that I don't have a monopoly on correctness. I welcome your (indeed everyone's) input, and I hope my articles are interesting enough such that you can find problems in my writing in the future (you know, because then my work would have fewer errors).

In this particular case, I had chosen a "clunky" phrasing in order to draw attention to what I think is (hmmmm) contrived script writing - my "peeve" is with Doris Egan. I didn't want to just revert (Flame war) to my own work especially since it seems like an innocuous simplification.

As for Rendition vs Rendition (TV story) (I notice that I linked the wrong one in my "talk" on your page) I made a small attempt to improve the phrasing (that sentence wasn't one of mine) there, but I wouldn't presume to remove the {{what}} flag unless you felt my edit was an improvement. --Watcher4200 17:23, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?.

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 07:42: Wed 21 Dec 2011 

Christmas cheer

Happy holidays!

As this fiftieth anniversary year comes to a close, we here at Tardis just want to thank you for being a part of our community — even if you haven't edited here in a while. If you have edited with us this year, then thanks for all your hard work.

This year has seen an impressive amount of growth. We've added about 11,000 pages this year, which is frankly incredible for a wiki this big. November was predictably one of the busiest months we've ever had: over 500 unique editors pitched in. It was the highest number of editors in wiki history for a year in which only one programme in the DWU was active. And our viewing stats have been through the roof. We've averaged well over 2 million page views each week for the last two months, with some weeks seeing over 4 million views!

We've received an unprecedented level of support from Wikia Staff, resulting in all sorts of new goodies and productive new relationships. And we've recently decided to lift almost every block we've ever made so as to allow most everyone a second chance to be part of our community.

2014 promises to build on this year's foundations, especially since we've got a full, unbroken series coming up — something that hasn't happened since 2011. We hope you'll stick with us — or return to the Tardis — so that you can be a part of the fun!