User talk:SOTO
To save you the trouble, just call me SOTO.
Also, please sign your messages. Thanks.
First Strax Field Report
So what's your rationale for starting an article about something that contains a spoiler, however mild, about the 50th anniversary?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 00:34: Fri 31 May 2013
- The only time limit on addressing violations of T:SPOIL is the point when the story is released in full. So if this were 24 November, you'd have a point. As it's not, you don't.
- People ask all the time, "Why didn't you say something at the time?" The answer is extraordinarily simple. It's a big wiki, there's a lot going on, and there's no way that any automated process could have possibly detected this kind of policy violation. I had to simply happen across it. Which I did today. If someone went to an obscure page and rewrote it to contain plausible — but 100 percent false — information, it's quite possible that it wouldn't be found for months. Elapsed time doesn't make the action "okay".
- This thing is an advertisement for a future story containing behind the scenes footage which mildly spoils the fiftieth anniversary story. And in the same way that trailers about future stories or interviews which contain info about future stories are not allowed, neither is this. The very location around which the report centres is a spoiler. So, it's going bye-bye, and I'm probably going to scrub all references to the name of thing, too. And I'll be locking down Strax Field Report, too. This little series has actually been quite detrimental to those wanting to keep themselves away from all spoilers. I can think of at least two pieces of information it gave out about future stories: the name of episode 14 and a location in episode 15. Well no more. It's an advert, pure and simple, and it's not eroding the surprises of the fiftieth any further on this wiki.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 01:40: Fri 31 May 2013
David Melbourne page error
SOTO, I fixed that for you. <ref name=Who-ology></> should've been <ref name="Who-ology" />. Digifiend Talk PR/SS KR MH Toku JD Garo TH CG UM Logos CLG DW 13:23,1/6/2013
Rhenborg
Thank you for cleaning the article up for me. Would it be ok to include the article in the websites category too, considering that the article is kind of about his website as well? or not
Thank you from brand new user Paul8McGann ☎ 22:57, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Pipes in infoboes
As stated at Thread:133001, please don't manually correct missing/additional pipes in infoboxes, as you recently did at Just War. I'm literally running the bot right now to correct all that.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 00:15: Tue 04 Jun 2013
Religion
I think you need stop and bring it to the forum whether we want to start going down the road of religious classification of individuals. Category:Leaders of the early Christian church is one thing, because that's actually a cat about an organisation. Actually identifying people by their religion is getting into a sensitive territory. Yes, we do have some stories that deal with Catholic/Protestant conflicts, but how finely do we want to take it? Does the fact that there's a wedding in a Christian church in Father's Day mean those people are Christians? I think I'd be more comfortable if we kept the category away from the general area of belief and more towards people who were officially a part of a church (or the heads of church-dominated states). I think Category:Protestants could swiftly become a matter of great speculation, and thereby fall foul of T:CAT NAME. Don't forget, too, that a lot of people fought on the Catholic or Protestant side not because it was their actual religious preference, but because the style of government a particular leader represented was to their liking. And, yanno, whatcha gonna call Henry VIII, since he "converted" (to be super-generous to him) mid-life?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 16:24: Wed 05 Jun 2013
- I'd still prefer this as a community discussion rather than notes on user pages. It's fairly complicated and maybe others will have useful input.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:03: Wed 05 Jun 2013
Wikipedia
T:NOT WP, T:EVIL TWIN, and T:SPOIL ALLOW all combine to say that you shouldn't create a link to a spoiler, however mild, in the user talk namespace. Forget about the merits of your discussion—you shouldn't even have asked the question on my user talk page. Please be careful in future that you don't ask questions which themselves contain or link to spoilers.
On the merits of the question, nothing is changed by what WP:DW are doing. We're not going to be having a space that allows for spoilers for the 50th. Surely you've by now seen the clear message at, amongst other places, MediaWiki:Community-corner.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:37: Thu 06 Jun 2013
