User talk:Mini-mitch: Difference between revisions
GhastlyKhaos (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
I said this was a threat, then he said I was lucky that I had not already been banned, and he had already not told another admin [i.e, you]. What do you think? (sorry, forgot to sign) {{user:Ghastly9090/sig}} 14:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC) | I said this was a threat, then he said I was lucky that I had not already been banned, and he had already not told another admin [i.e, you]. What do you think? (sorry, forgot to sign) {{user:Ghastly9090/sig}} 14:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC) | ||
I saw the eye patched lady in the trailer for it | |||
Revision as of 10:59, 18 May 2011
"Unused" images (continued)
What is it with both you and Skittles? Today, you've both archived pages while you were in the middle of conversation with me, leading to an edit conflict because of archiving. You could've at least left the open discussion thread on the new page so the conversation flow wasn't interrupted.
But anyway, yeah, let's make it a full week. So on Sunday, you delete the old and markup the new. Or if you'd like, I can take care of deletion with the bot, which'll be quicker.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">18:29:48 Fri 15 Apr 2011
- full week, if you would, please. Sunday to Sunday. In fact, why not just let me delete them, since it'll literally take me 30 seconds, where it might take you several minutes.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">18:41:50 Fri 15 Apr 2011
Duplicates: things to consider
On the matter of duplicates, please be careful. A cropped image isn't a duplicate. For instance, you called file:Cleanup.jpg and file:Cleanup2.jpg duplicates, and that's not true. There are good technical reasons why an editor might want Cleanup2 versus Cleanup. And, likewise, there are times where you want the widescreen dimensions of Cleanup. Also, you can tell from the colour balance that they aren't the same pic. They might have been taken from the same instant of Spearhead, but they're not the same.
possibly from the VHS
definitely from the DVD
Note the completely different orientation of the pics. I did the second version precisely because I needed something "longer", so that it would slide neatly down the left side of a template. You'll see me doing this sort of thing all the time, because there are occasions it's important to try to get an image to fit a precise space. (See, for instance, the remarkably difficult file:TenThin.jpg and file:TenThinner.jpg.) You're going to find, I think, that we're going to get "thinner" versions of a lot of images, now that we can put pics in navboxes and the standard width for navbox pics is 85px. That width means that we cannot use images as they are; we have to specifically manufacture them. Same thing is true with top-of-page images like File:Update200px.jpg. That pic comes from another one at full widescreen dimensions. But it had to be cut down to fit 200px. This means that there are two reasonably similar pics on the site, with perhaps even the same basic orientation, but for two totally different purposes.
Transparency
Another thing to remember is the importance of transparency.
Same pic, right? Not at all. The one on the left has McDaid's original background, whereas the one on the right is a transparency. Useful to have both; sometimes you need a transparent version of an image, sometimes you don't.
"File links" can be wrong
With pages in the file namespace, a link on the file page is only displayed when it's normally referenced. That is, if you put the actual picture on a page, it shows up under "File links". If you just link to the name, it doesn't. For instance, compare file:McDaidSketch.jpg#File links with Special:WhatLinksHere/File:McDaidSketch.jpg. What you find is that there's one more link under "What Links Here" than there is under "File links". "File links" does not report instances where you link to the name of a file; it only reports places where the image is on display.
In other words, it's possible to have a file apparently having no links, when in fact there are links to it. In this case, the non-image-generating link is rather important, because it's a part of the copyright explanation for file:ComicStub.png.
Moral of the lesson is that only "What Links Here" gives an accurate report of whether there are any links to the file.
Summary
"Duplicate" means exact duplicate (or something so close to exact as to make no odds). The two pairs of pictures are just the tip of the iceberg of similar versions that should be allowed to remain on the site. Check the dimensions, check the colour balance, check the "What Links Here" before even proposing deletion. We should be getting rid of true duplicates (as listed at Tardis:duplicate images). But we should exercise extreme caution when getting rid different versions of the same image.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">18:29:48 Fri 15 Apr 2011
Series 6 trailer removal
I see that you removed the series 6 trailer that was on Series 6 (Doctor Who), citing the reasons that it "mucked up format". Well, that's a fairly weak rationale, since the series pages largely have no format. They will, eventually, but they certainly don't now. Unless you count centering a logo at the top of the page a "format". I definitely agree that it was in a bad place — why Ghastly would have buried it in the middle of a sentence and set it at 300px — is beyond me. These pages are missing infoboxen, which is really where these trailers should probably go, but I don't see any particular harm in sliding them right under the logo on the right-hand side.
We need to remember that our video policy does in fact allow for videos released to YouTube by the copyright holders. Throwing such a video off the page, and suggesting that the user "put it on [their] user page", isn't in the spirit of that policy. Trailers are uniquely appropriate descriptors of a story or a season, so we should use them where legally available.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">17:01:33 Sat 16 Apr 2011
Re:Suggestion
Well, on the flip side, why didn't you go to the talkpage earlier, instead of ignoring me? If there is a disagreement, then the arguers are to go to the TP. You are disputing my edit, so you are go to the TP to discuss the issue, right? --Bold Clone 19:20, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose thats fair, although over 48 hours is way past the cooling off period we have, isn't it around 2 hours? --Revan\Talk 20:14, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Re: Under the line
Having wondered for a long time what the gold and green symbols mean on The Howling, I appreciate that you've know enlightened me to that. I just wanted to say 'thanks'. Gallifrey102 21:32, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Block
You were quite right in correcting my mistake of no reason given. I have now given one so I have reintroduced the block. Evidence of his misconduct can be seen at Forum:Proposed Deletion of Blue, Red and White humanoids - Yes or No. Thanks----Skittles the hog--Talk 21:33, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the page? He clearly states his thoughts that I am a dick. That's profanity, which is against the Tardis:No personal attacks policy. You can clearly see this on the forum link above on his latest post. I think its such an obvious act that it doesn't really need a third party view, however I accept that your opinion may differ and so apologise if you think I'm being unfair. The user is clearly aggressive. Nearly all his posts include such profanity and he then aimed it at me. Bit over the line in my opinion. Anyway, thanks for looking into it.----Skittles the hog--Talk 21:45, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
References
How come we can't reference from Doctor Who Spoilers? Most of the references I do on the site are from DWS and they haven't been changed... If anything, wouldn't they have better information than Doctor Who TV and TARDIS Spoilers? TheTARDIScontroller 22:30, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I understand now... Sorry about the whole angrily intended messages lol TheTARDIScontroller 22:59, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
Spoiler Policy
Just a quick question about the spoiler policy: when are spoilers allowed to be posted from the newest episodes: immediately after the airing of the episode in the UK, or after the episode has premiered on all the different counries? --Bold Clone 19:44, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
Why?
Why did you revert my edit here: http://tardis.wikia.com/index.php?title=Series_6_%28Doctor_Who%29&action=historysubmit&diff=572684&oldid=572683 ? It was proven correct and I annotated the episode. -- Rest In Peace Sarah Jane \ Talk to me! 14:55, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Again...removed with no explanation. Why? Also, why were you so sarcastic to me on Joy's talk page? Maybe if you explained things instead of being rude, I could learn how this place operates. -- Rest In Peace Sarah Jane \ Talk to me! 17:52, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
River Song
The Trading Card is marked "The Impossible Astronaut" and that episode has aired. Also revalations don't always have to come from episodes which has been proven many times before. Michael Downey 17:40, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
17th century years
Since most of the years in this century would have little or no information, it would be easier to have all the years on one page the way it is now, just like the centuries prior to the 15th are all on one page (Early human history). Doug86 21:34, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
- You said earlier on my talk page that if a year has a recorded event, then it goes on page for that year. However, all the specified years from the beginning of time to the end of the 14th century don't have their own pages, but are listed on the Distant past and Early human history pages. This is to keep down the number of year pages which would have no information in them. Since the centuries after the 15th wouldn't really count as "early" history, they have their own pages, but the specific years are still not given their own pages because only a few years of each century have any data on them. In fact, I think that the only centuries where we can justify having individual year pages are the 19th, 20th, and 21st, and I think most of the other Admins would agree with me. In closing, I think we should have a forum on this subject before more year pages are added to the wiki. Doug86 19:19, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
EJA
Hey, maybe you should leave User:EJA a message about forum headers. I've already left two messages to no avail, but maybe requests from another user may get him to actually do what we are asking. --Revan\Talk 20:29, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
IMDB
I've been using wikia's for a while and have never been told not to link to IMDB.com before, why is not done on here? Geek Mythology 11:42, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
Little Girl
This page is getting alot of heat, maybe we should consider locking it for the rest of the day? Skittles supports this, what about you? --Revan\Talk 18:15, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
I just re-added it, we're like a hive mind :-) --Revan\Talk 18:18, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
Can you please unlock it, people are just putting the basics. Put a spoilers thing at the top and then let registered users edit, there is a lot of stuff related to this that keeps getting edited out by other people.Chariblock1 18:27, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
Theme
Could you please leave this background up. I have contacted wikia staff as I am experiencing issues with it and they may wish to see it in its current form. Thank you for your co-operation.----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:16, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
Policy
Hey, just checking to see wh you reverted my edit to the bolcking policy page. Shouldn't that sort of stuff be covered by the policy? --Bold Clone 18:31, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
- I think the matter would be worth discussing in the forums, as the content you deleted was from another blocking policy of the wiki. --Bold Clone 19:07, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
Little Girl (The Impossible Astronaut) page
I would like to ask why do we have to put the "Little Girl's" species as near human we don't know for sure but we do know that only Time Lords can regenerate i know you are more experienced and know more than me so I respect ur decision. But why does the template page for time lords have the Little Girl on it. The mysterious 15:20, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
The Smugglers and The Curse of the Black Spot
Are you sure it's a different Captain Avery, as the writer of the episode mentions in the latest Doctor Who Magazine that it's the same one?
{{Talk Page}}
Please see my comments at forum:Tags on talk pages.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">15:53:15 Thu 12 May 2011 15:53, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
Amy Pond (Aboard the pirate ship)
My last edit on Amy pond seemed to be undone, I dont understand what's the matter but please can you tell me why, thank you. The mysterious 14:09, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
The Doctor's TARDIS tiff
You had a tiny little disagreement with an anon yesterday over how best to edit a portion of the Doctor's TARDIS. What you may not have seen is that he or she decided to vent his or her frustration in the edit summary in a way that clearly violated Tardis:No personal attacks. It was such an obvious violation of the policy that I regrettably had to block the user, if we want the policy to have any teeth. However it's a very light block (for this kind of offense) of only a week. You promised in one of your edit summaries to show him or her the difference between how he was phrasing things and how we might expect things to be worded. If you care to follow up on that, you can do so at one of the two talk pages associated with this user: 92.7.197.29 or 2.97.162.141.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">13:03:46 Sun 15 May 2011
Idris
Why is Idris protected? ---Si Iway amway Ichamousacoricothingmabobsay. http://images.wikia.com/tardis/images/e/e4/Si_HTL_Seal_Leader.PNG 16:56, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
Spoilers
Hi. I've been having an argument with CzechOut, and he mentioned your name, so I thought I would consult you and see what you think. I added some info about the cybermen in episode seven into the Background discussion in the panopticon. This was basically what I said:
For examle, seeing as the Cybermen are appearing in episode 7, we could have a cyber-themed background.
This is a tiny spoiler, and at the time, I was unaware of the spoiler policy in the Panopticon. Then, Czech Out left a potentionally threatening message on my talk page about the above. He said that it was a spoiler and that the Panopticon was supposed to be a spoiler-clean place, even though by know it is a well known fact that the cybermen are coming back, then he said the following:
If you put any more spoilers, even the tiniest little scrap of the narrative future, even if you believe it's common knowledge, in any thread at The Panopticon, I will personally block you for six months.
I said this was a threat, then he said I was lucky that I had not already been banned, and he had already not told another admin [i.e, you]. What do you think? (sorry, forgot to sign) User:Ghastly9090/sig 14:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
I saw the eye patched lady in the trailer for it
