User talk:Anoted/Archive 1
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only. |
|---|
AnotedThanks for your edits! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool!
We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first.
British English, please
We generally use British English round these parts, so if you're American, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card.
Spoilers aren't cool
We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details.
Other useful stuff
Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:
- the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
- our Manual of Style
- our image use policy
- our user page policy
- a list of people whose job it is to help you
If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! — you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:
Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this:Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on my talk page. -- CzechOut (Talk) 22:51, 2013 March 31
Don't attack the messenger in forums
For the benefit of future readers of forums, it's important that threads be kept on topic. If you think that a person is slighting you in a forum, it's probably a better idea to speak directly with them on their talk page than to bring your emotions to a forum discussion. Forum discussions are often used years later later as a snapshot of opinion on a particular topic. Two years from now, for instance, it might be very helpful for a person who has similar questions to you to read the discussion you started.
But it will be less helpful if there's an interpersonal flare-up there.
I'm sorry you feel disaffected by the help I tried to provide. Your comments make me feel similarly disaffected because I've worked really hard to help you. Indeed, I have spent much of this week on your specific issues. I dropped what I was doing to rush to help you with your browser concerns. I did some technical research to help you, and have even collaborated with other Wikians in order to make sure I was giving you sound advice. And I have prepared lengthy, detailed responses to every question you've asked at the other thread.
Only a person who wanted to welcome you would have spent so much energy. It's extremely disheartening to find that this effort appears to have been in vain.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 01:41: Fri 12 Apr 2013
- diff of the following reply at CzechOut's talk page
- I do appreciate the time and effort you expended, and you're right, I should have split that message in two and posted the later half on your talk page.
- And you're right, the thread did start as asking about policy. But after the first few posts I'd been clearly informed and it transitioned into a discussion about editing. As in how to edit with an understanding of the policy. There was still a heavy focus on policy and clarifications but the bulk of the discussion was on how to deal with certain situations and how to act on policy.
- I understand that I use hyperbole and I do understand how that led to you thinking that I was talking about a visual problem. My frustration really built when I got answers to things that weren't problems, after I'd taken the time to clear up confusions and state unequivocally that that wasn't the problem. My real frustration was that it didn't feel like a discussion: I felt that I wasn't being listened to. I can understand how you thought I might be a bit more familiar with the biggest wiki in the world, but once I said no, that I wasn't, it was really annoying to be asked if I was sure. It might have been said jokingly, but tone doesn't translate online and combined with everything else it just exacerbated things.
- Partially it's something that had really been building on the thread. I felt like you were constantly answering not quite the question I had asked. That, and the fact that I had to constantly repeat myself--I felt a little bit like I was banding my head against a wall.
- When you replied to me on the thread:
- "all I wanted was a yes or no", and on the other says, "I wanted to know if there were exceptions"
- That's a perfect example of what I mean. I wanted to know if there were exceptions and how to apply policy in certain editing situations, but once you said yes to my question (If a link fits the basic requirements of not having been linked earlier in the article, and can be an article, MUST it be linked?) then I didn't need to know anymore. As far as I understood you, you were telling me that there were no exceptions. That I didn't need to better understand how to apply policy because there were never exceptions. If it could be linked it was required that it be linked. If things are truly that black and white then yes or no is really all I need.
- And when I said that I only wanted a yes or no, that was because I felt like you had been piling on. You said yes, there are no exceptions and then followed it up by saying that a lot. I had asked a series of questions. And answering the later question was dependent on a particular answer to the first question. I was asking, is it A or B? And every question after that was predicated on the first answer being B. So when you went through all of my questions and basically said "it's A, it's still A, we follow policy so it's A," I didn't feel so great.
- You also really confused me. Your first really long post came immediately after SOTO's fairly long post. And you said some things which seemed to contradict what SOTO said. I hadn't needed additional clarification after reading SOTO's comment, but then I read your comment and was quite a bit more confused than I had been. I'm actually still a little confused about that. I'm not sure if you and SOTO have different opinions of what policy means and on how to edit, or if you're trying to tell me the same thing but it's just not quite coming across. It would be helpful to know if you think that advice was correct. Anoted ☎ 03:22, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I have to tell you that you've tired me out. I've spent a lot of time with you this week, and it's only made you angry. So I hope you'll forgive me if I cut my losses and bow out. The only thing I really want to stress is that I feel like I did answer your questions thoughtfully and carefully, even if you believe I didn't.
- Oh, and I guess there's this. You were puzzled by differences between what I said and what SOTO did. If you violate our linking policy, there's not much SOTO can do about it. I, on the other hand, can stop you from editing here. SOTO has edited diligently and in usually good faith for the four months he's been with us, but if he and I render a split decision, the tie probably goes to me. Dunno if that helps or not.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 04:53: Fri 12 Apr 2013
- Oh, and I guess there's this. You were puzzled by differences between what I said and what SOTO did. If you violate our linking policy, there's not much SOTO can do about it. I, on the other hand, can stop you from editing here. SOTO has edited diligently and in usually good faith for the four months he's been with us, but if he and I render a split decision, the tie probably goes to me. Dunno if that helps or not.
- diff of the following reply at CzechOut's talk page
- I was hoping for you to weigh in on the comment specifically, but that's fine, thanks. Anoted ☎ 05:16, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Anoted, you were the one being attacked. I've never seen such condescension on a message board than in his replies to your very innocent questions. You were only asking for clarification and he was just insulting. Yet, you kept trying to explain what you were asking about. You stuck with that discussion far longer than I would have. There's more I'd like to say about reading that thread but I think this is a family-friendly site. The admins do seem intent on driving people away who might want to make a contribution and help out. If that is how someone who is trying to do a good job is treated, well, maybe your work would be better appreciated elsewhere. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.134.86 (talk • contribs) .
- diff of the following reply from 69.125.134.86's talk page
- I really appreciated your comment of support on my talk page. I was really surprised by the tone on the forums, and thought for a bit that maybe it was just me and that I was reading more into it then was really there. This came from wondering why the hell I was the only one who seemed to see it. I've since read some threads that I didn't participate in and was just floored at how it seemed like the community accepted certain people being outright insulting. I'm finding it easier to just avoid the forums and talk pages unless absolutely necessary. While I love the communal nature of wikis and normally would participate vigorously in discussion and turn to people for advice and mentoring, I find it easier to shy away from this community as much as possible. Anyway, I really appreciate your taking the time to come to my talk page and let me know I wasn't alone. Anoted ☎ 02:06, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
Image rules
Please familiarise yourself with T:ICC and T:GTI, our two handy guides to image use on this wiki. I've had to delete some of your images for contravening these rules. Specifically, images should be widescreen where possible and cannot be png format if screenshots and must be less than 100kb — that's kilobytes in most circumstances. Thanks. :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 11:11: Fri 12 Apr 2013
Linking tips
In reviewing your recent contributions, I've noticed a few patterns in your editing that are wasting your time. Linking is quite a bit more flexible that your edits indicate you believe. In general you seem to be using pipe tricks in unusual ways.
| Page you edited | Your way | Better way | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Doctor's Daughter | [[Alien|alien]], [[Hamster|hamster]] |
[[alien]], [[hamster]] |
You don't need to pipe trick away an initial capital; the system will link regardless of the cap state of the first letter |
| as above | [[Progenation|Progenation machine]] |
[[progenation]] machine |
There's no grammatical reason to capitalise the adjective here. Also, don't bring in more of the phrase than is covered by the linked article. The article is about progenation itself, not the machine that accomplishes it, so link only that word. |
| The Poison Sky | [[The Doctor's TARDIS|the TARDIS]] |
[[the TARDIS]] |
Points for completeness, I suppose, but it's not necessary. There's a valid redirect to the Doctor's TARDIS at the TARDIS. Feel free to avail yourself of it — and thereby save a lot of time. |
| as above | [[Nuclear weapon|nuclear weapons]], [[Firearm|firearms]], [[Bullet|bullets]] |
[[nuclear weapon]]s, [[firearm]]s, [[bullet]]s |
If all you're doing is pluralizing, stick an s after the closing bracket and move on. Not only does your method take a lot more time for you, it also makes it harder for the bot to maintain the wiki. |
| as above | [[Atmospheric Converter|atmospheric converter]] |
[[atmospheric converter]] |
If you believe that a title is unjustly rendered as a proper noun, don't just pipe-trick it the lower case. Go ahead and move the page to proper capitalisation and then perform a simple link to the new page name. |
| Energy weapon | or '''[[Ray gun|ray guns]]''' |
or '''ray guns''' |
There's a lot going on at this article that's nothing to do with your edits. Basically, the two articles should be merged. But the thing I wanted to highlight here is that you should avoid bolding a link in the lead of an article. The topic name in the lead of an article should be bolded only, not bolded and linked. |
Hope you found that helpful, and that my suggestions will save you a few keystrokes as you edit with us.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 00:11: Mon 15 Apr 2013
Please use past tense
Please note that we use past tense around here for in-universe articles. Your recent edit to stethoscope is improperly in present tense and should be corrected. Please see T:TENSES for more. Thanks!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:40: Tue 16 Apr 2013
- Thanks for that fix! It's perfect. Note that you can use, and indeed are sort of encouraged to use, present tense in the "behind the scenes" sections of articles. It's not required, but it usually makes it easier for readers to detect the change between info that actually comes from a narrative source, and that which doesn't. See "Kookaburra" for one example of the hard break between perspectives.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 19:08: Tue 16 Apr 2013
Christmas cheer
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!
