User talk:Tangerineduel

For the archived portion of this talk page see User talk:Tangerineduel/Archive - Wiki formatting

Please leave new edits at the bottom of the page

Cleanup Template

Ok. It is done. At the moment, it says: It needs to be cleaned up in these sections: as I couldn't think of anything better but if you can think of something better, feel free to change it. User:Solar Dragon/Signature 16:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. Sorry, I thought it was you who left my the message. I don't know why. Anyway, it needs rewording I know but can you think of anything better? User:Solar Dragon/Signature 16:52, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

The reason I was saying about it was that, for example, on River Song's page, it was in need of a clean-up. But it didn't need it for one section, it needed it in the the whole thing, but most people wouldn't know that the cleanup needed all spoilers removed. If we add this section to the cleanup template, it doesn't always need to be used, but it is there for necessary times when specifics need to be removed such as the spoilers on River's page. I've cleaned her page up since asking for the template to be modified, but I still think it will be useful for the future. The Thirteenth Doctor 17:08, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Community involvement with the italics/quotes issue

I obviously value discussions and consensus decision-making too. That's why I use the fora and talk pages with great frequency. You keep making the point of seeking discussion as if it's something I'm not doing. But is that fair? We're talking about a change that I clearly want to make, that I have the tools to make with relative ease, and about which I actually don't think there is any logical resistance. To me, this is like arguing over whether the sky is blue. And yet . . I've made no substantive moves on the matter in the 18 months the discussion has been open. How much more dedicated do you want me to be to using the fora? Even by our standards, this discussion has been ongoing, unresolved, for a ridiculously long time. Let's face it, if you were on board with this idea, you wouldn't be behaving so cautiously. And reluctance and caution are both fine things. But please don't shade the issue as if I'm trying to do something improper by seeking closure on an 18-month-old discussion. Most of my major actions on this wiki have only been made after at least some period of discussion on the fora or talk pages. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:46, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a 18-month discussion and not just two spurts of activity. It's significant that no one else has posted in that time. I think it indicates that they don't care, and that they want us to settle the matter. You can't make people interested enough in a topic that they'll post. Some things attract attention; some things don't. You can't force people to use the fora. If you wanna try the canvassing thing, cool. For me, canvassing has produced mixed results in the past, but what the heck. Again, though, let's not make this out to be a question of failing to involve the community. That's wholly unfair. This topic has been out there, and several times at the top of the list of topics at the Panopticon. It's not like this has been buried on your talk page. People have read it, and chosen to ignore it, just like they did the K9 discussion. Arguing the finer points of punctuation isn't gonna set the world on fire, but somebody has to bring it up and take a stand on it. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really glad you've gotten more input at the forum thread, but I do think the precise language you've used to drive people there was a little less than neutral. Instead of saying something bland like, "Could you please come to this forum thread and give your opinion", you went further than I would and said, "I'm not comfortable with . . . " — which kinda suggests that something "fishy" was going on. People will have naturally gone to that page with greater suspicion than was necessary. I'm not angry or anything. I don't think you were actually trying to "load" the discussion with people "on your side". And I absolutely understand what you were trying to say in the full sentence. You were saying that you were uncomfortable with just two people having the discussion, which is a perfectly valid point.

But I do think some people might have focused merely on the fact that you said you were uncomfortable rather than parsing the whole sentence. And as you're viewed as the senior admin who tends to "close" these discussions, such word choice can have a devastating effect upon genuine conversation. It's a bit like one's boss saying, "I'm uncomfortable; aren't you uncomfortable, too?" And that feeling of discomfort could be then applied to the thing being proposed, especially as you are uncomfortable with the proposal. Again, I'm not suggesting intentionality or anything like that, but that's a subliminal vibe that's possible to infer. It's so important to consensus building that people be alerted to a discussion in as neutral a way as possible, as is suggested at the Wikipedia guidelines on canvassing. In the interests of avoiding anything like this in the future, I have therefore brought over a simplified version of {{Please see}} from Wikipedia. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 20:25, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my words upset you. I thought they would reassure you. After all, having the tools to do something, but not doing them, surely shows restraint and responsibility. In this instance in particular, where I really don't understand the community response, I think it shows a demonstrable respect for the community-building process. You seem to start from the position that I'm a loose cannon or something, and that baffles me. Given that you've had other admin around here saying things on talk pages like, "Nah, don't ask anybody, just do it," I'd have thought the amount that I talk about things before doing them a refreshing change. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:50, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Formatting the Doctors

Hey. You were part of the discussion above. I was wondering if you could have a look at the discussion as I have given a new reply including an example page, and maybe we could start discussing it again now that we'll have time before the Christmas special. Also, I think it'd be good to get the rest of the community's opinions if you could ask them to join. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 20:53, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

The Time Field

As we Know the Finale has aired but yet nobody has made a decision. So Please Could you move the Time Field to the Time Crack! I am Only asking to change this because in the big bang the doctor says amy is not a ordinary girl because she grew up with a Time CRACK in her wall not time field. so please could you move it? From Liamhenney 18:29, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Help with discussion

Hey, can you please state you view on the discussion I am having in the forums here. Its about the navigation template, and I am would like you views on them, and how we can improve them (ChzechOut's idea) or if we should remove them. Cheers. Mini-mitch 22:19, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who Spoofs

What is the limit really of Doctor Who spoofs? I mean... The Curse of the Fatal Death has an article on this wiki. Lenny Henry also did a spoof on his show, so should that have an article as well. I understand that not all spoofs need an article, a lot of them aren't proper skits, but I think the Lenny Henry one is. It was also released alongside the Curse of the Fatal Death and on the Trial of a Time Lord. So shouldn't it have its own article(s). I can create them in my user namespace first if that's better? The Thirteenth Doctor 13:25, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Mortimus name change

Hey there, a number of users have been talking about a name change from Mortimus to The Monk because now Mortimus isnt his most recent name and The Monk is a more recognised name for him. Just thought i'd get an admin's view before changing anything.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Mortimus

Revanvolatrelundar 15:11, October 11, 2010 (UTC)