User talk:Revanvolatrelundar

Please leave all new messages at the bottom of the page.

Please sign all message as well.

Any unsigned comments, which are either a personal attack or rude will be ignored and deleted.

Update

Just thought you might want to know that I contacted wikia regarding the background issue. They promptly replied with:

We are currently having some image server issues going on related to purging of images from our caches as they are uploaded. Our technical team is currently working on finding the cause and resolving it.Wikia

They didn't provide a time-scale for a solution so I can only hope its prior to Saturday. Thanks----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:17, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Is the new background fitting on your screen? It's aligned to the right a bit more than the last one. Thanks----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:29, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Really? I haven't touched it. I'll upload a new version moved left a bit. You may have to refresh your cache in 5. Thanks for helping me "perfect" this. :)----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:32, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have missed it as it's a bit obscure. I've uploaded a new version now.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:38, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I have been notified of similar problems. I think its just a case of finding a size that fits the majority.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:15, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Done!----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:55, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Come on, Revan! (RE: Doug86)

Do you hate Doug86? Cokme on, admit it! I certainly do! Do you dislike Doug86? Do you? Has he ever deleted a page straight away that you created like 90.215.45.50's Temporal Anomaly? Well? Doug87 19:27, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

PS: Leave the answer below, please, as I have no talk page. Doug87 19:29, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

"Doug87"

I've deleted the message you left on "Doug87" as the user doesn't exist (if they did they'd have a talk welcome page), the user page/contributions page has no contributions or deleted contributions. I think there's a few IP users masquerading as "Doug87", the user who left the talk comment above (90.210.131.149) also left a few talk page comments on my talk page where they pretend to be 4 different users. I've deleted your comment left on "Doug87"'s talk page just so the user doesn't gain any legitimacy (please restore it if you think it should be left intact though). Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:27, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Hey, I just wanted to ask you opinion on adding the following to Tardis:Deletion policy (or something to the same affect).

"Brevity is not a reason for deletion unless the subject matter is covered by an article with a similar agenda."

I'm not trying to suggest we list all the invalid reasons for deletion but cases like this seem to be quite prevalent and so it would be nice to have something to refer to. It's not a big change, but it would be quite handy. What do you think?----Skittles the hog--Talk 13:08, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

We need to settle the validity of FP as a resource before you continue adding tons of material about it

Please stop writing articles so as to suggest that an FP source has claimed something about Gallifrey, Time Lords, the Doctor, or any other BBC-copyrighted item. If you can't produce a page number in a FP book that actually says "Gallifrey"' then don't claim that an FP source talks about Gallifrey. I know you love FP, and you're au fait with all the little "code words" and sly references to BBC concepts, but please don't go beyond what the text actually says.

It's highly misleading to readers to claim that Of the City of the Saved... says something about a Time Lord named Handramit who left Gallifrey when neither "Time Lord" nor "Gallifrey" appears in the text of the book.

There is only one narrative about Faction Paradox that is true to the DWU, and that's the one that happened in the EDAs. The Lawrence Miles spin-off wasn't allowed to refer to anything in the DWU by its proper name for legal reasons. We can't now go back in and try to decipher the code language that he used to get around legal restrictions. It's absolute madness for us to attempt something like that.

Obviously this is just my very strong opinion, and not policy. I'm just asking you to stop making these kind of articles until the matter can be settled once and for all by community consensus.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">19:11:25 Mon 30 May 2011 

Protection

Hey, just wanted to make sure you know that the protection template only forms that label, it doesn't protect the article. I protected River Song; just undo it when your done. :)----Skittles the hog--Talk 19:14, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Good move.----Skittles the hog--Talk 19:59, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm really worried about this lock that you and Skittles have jointly done at River Song. Locking a main character's page during the period of time when most editors really want to write about that character is a bit of an own goal. Fine, we want to protect pages about stories that haven't been published before. But locking River Song after an episode with a big revelation about her? We really don't have any cause to do that, except possibly if there were an actual edit war. We want a lot of activity after episodes are broadcast. Sure there might be moments where an article reads rough during that creative process, but we don't want to stop all editing dead in its tracks. In simplest terms, that's just no fun for our editors. We're already having a tough time making them understand why they've got to wait until an episode is broadcast to edit the page about it. We can't very well then turn around and say, "Now you can't edit after that episode has gone out."

We want people writing when they're most enthusiastic about a subject. Some of the revisions are gonna be crap, but if we have faith in the wiki process, the article will soon find its level.

Also, you're kinda misrepresenting things at Talk:River Song#Why is it locked? when you say, "it was protected before". Yes, the article has been protected before, but never locked. There is no precedent for this action you've taken; I'm pretty sure that I've never seen a new series character page ever fully locked before.

Please remove the lock ASAP. It's pissin' reasonable editors off, as evidenced by the discussion on the rest of the page. Indeed, editors who could have helped you police the page have now been alienated by the lock. Locking isn't really supposed to be done in the main namespace, save for instituting a cool-down period during a genuine edit war. As indicated at tardis:protection policy, Its main use is really in other namespaces, like template:, file:, tardis: and help:.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">06:47:35 Thu 09 Jun 2011 

Doomsday (RE: Stop it)

Stop reverting my edits to the Doomsday page! It is absolutely uncalled for! 90.210.131.174 19:37, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:A few changes?. Mini-mitch\talk 17:30, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Eight image

Seeing as you are sort of the Eighth Doctor guru, I was wondering if you prefer this image? The current one makes him look a bit bashful.----Skittles the hog--Talk 21:18, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

The Absolute

I don't suppose you remember but your revision of the Absolute categorised it under robots. I just categorised it under Unique beings as I wasn't sure. Any insight as to which it was, I cannot remember?----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:32, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Reverted The Eternity Trap

Why was my edit for The Eternity Trap's crew members removed entirely? According to the Format for television stories, it's perfectly fine, if not outright preferred to use Template:Wales crew for the BBC Wales spinoffs. 94.2.154.27 19:54, June 27, 2011 (UTC)