emailconfirmed, Administrators
129,644
edits
User talk:Sinefirt: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Review details
No edit summary |
Shambala108 (talk | contribs) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div id=glow><div id=sfh style="font-size:150%;line-height:110%;text-align:center;">'''Welcome to the [[file:wordmark | <div id=glow><div id=sfh style="font-size:150%;line-height:110%;text-align:center;">'''Welcome to the [[file:wiki-wordmark.png|Tardis:About]] Sinefirt</div> | ||
Thanks for your [[Special:Contributions/Sinefirt|edits | Thanks for your [[Special:Contributions/Sinefirt|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 '''[[Help:Game of Rassilon|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! | ||
[[file:Hello.jpg|right|250px|<span id=sfh style="background-color:transparent;text-align:center;font-size:125%;">'''We only take the best!'''</span>|thumb]] | [[file:Hello.jpg|right|250px|<span id=sfh style="background-color:transparent;text-align:center;font-size:125%;">'''We only take the best!'''</span>|thumb]] | ||
We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first.<br> | We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first.<br> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
== Block == | == Block == | ||
Heya :) Hate to do this to you so early in your editing career with us, but I need to blcok you for a day to conduct a review of your editing. Don't worry, it's not going to last much longer. However, I've been alerted to some irregularities in your editing, and I need to stop you from editing for a bit so I can advise you how best to proceed with us. My preliminary research indicates that you have a tendency to just move pages without consultation to ongoing community discussions. But I'll be able to tell you more later. Thanks for your edits with us; hopefully this early review of your work will help you make even better edits here! {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | Heya :) Hate to do this to you so early in your editing career with us, but I need to blcok you for a day to conduct a review of your editing. Don't worry, it's not going to last much longer. However, I've been alerted to some irregularities in your editing, and I need to stop you from editing for a bit so I can advise you how best to proceed with us. My preliminary research indicates that you have a tendency to just move pages without consultation to ongoing community discussions. But I'll be able to tell you more later. Thanks for your edits with us; hopefully this early review of your work will help you make even better edits here! {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}05:28: Sun 08 Jan 2012 </span> | ||
===Review details=== | ===Review details=== | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
I really encourage you to have a look around the wiki, see the process of how we've named articles, have a look on the talk pages of articles that have conjectural names or ones that you think are mis-named (there may have already been a discussion). Or as I've said above start a topic in the forums, if you think this issue an issue you've found is too wide to be covered on one article page. Thanks, any questions feel free to leave them on my talk page and I'll try to help. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 16:32, January 8, 2012 (UTC) | I really encourage you to have a look around the wiki, see the process of how we've named articles, have a look on the talk pages of articles that have conjectural names or ones that you think are mis-named (there may have already been a discussion). Or as I've said above start a topic in the forums, if you think this issue an issue you've found is too wide to be covered on one article page. Thanks, any questions feel free to leave them on my talk page and I'll try to help. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 16:32, January 8, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::A lot of good specifics there from [[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] about why you were blocked and why a lot of what you've done so far has been reverted. Here are some of the things I've discovered: | ::A lot of good specifics there from [[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] about why you were blocked and why a lot of what you've done so far has been reverted. Here are some of the things I've discovered: | ||
::*Your name changes on the various Master pages can't be allowed to stand, at the moment, simply because we've got an ongoing discussion about what to do with these articles. It started at [[Forum:The Master]] and has continued on to [[Forum:The Master - 1 article]]. As you've discovered, the situation with these articles is untenable. They're named awkwardly, and in a way which basically ignores our standard [[dab|disambiguation policy]]. Exceptions are possible, of course, but the community needs to agree on them. And there's a legitimate open question of whether we should have separate articles ''at all''. Yes, we do encourage our editors to "[[wikipedia:wikipedia:W:BOLD|be bold]]", as the old Wikipedia expression goes, but you shouldn't be ''so'' bold as to trample on community discussions. I will say that I did find your combination of | ::*Your name changes on the various Master pages can't be allowed to stand, at the moment, simply because we've got an ongoing discussion about what to do with these articles. It started at [[Forum:The Master]] and has continued on to [[Forum:The Master - 1 article]]. As you've discovered, the situation with these articles is untenable. They're named awkwardly, and in a way which basically ignores our standard [[dab|disambiguation policy]]. Exceptions are possible, of course, but the community needs to agree on them. And there's a legitimate open question of whether we should have separate articles ''at all''. Yes, we do encourage our editors to "[[wikipedia:wikipedia:W:BOLD|be bold]]", as the old Wikipedia expression goes, but you shouldn't be ''so'' bold as to trample on community discussions. I will say that I did find your combination of The Master (Final Frontier) and {{Roberts}} articles intriguing, and think that it's further evidence of why we might be better off with only an article at [[The Master]]. Because of your interesting rewrites, '''I very much encourage you to let your views be known at [[forum:The Master - 1 article]].''' | ||
::*Your renaming of The Doctors (The Brain of Morbius) was reverted because you just changed the name and removed the {{tl|rename}} tag. Again, you can't just make changes when there's a discussion ongoing. These top-of-the-page maintenance messages — you know, ones like {{tL|delete}}, {{tl|merge}}, {{tl|rename}} and the like — can't just be removed by non-[[admin]] without discussion. (Since admin have to move discussions to conclusion, they often have to ''act'' on the proposal being made in the tag. But even admin should participate in the discussion, unless the case is fairly non-controversial.) This article's name was far from cut-and-dried, as talk:The Doctors (The Brain of Morbius) is awash with protests about its contents. Generally, if you see a tag at the top of an article that says "talk about it" anywhere in its text, you should first go to the talk page and, well, ''talk about it''. | ::*Your renaming of The Doctors (The Brain of Morbius) was reverted because you just changed the name and removed the {{tl|rename}} tag. Again, you can't just make changes when there's a discussion ongoing. These top-of-the-page maintenance messages — you know, ones like {{tL|delete}}, {{tl|merge}}, {{tl|rename}} and the like — can't just be removed by non-[[admin]] without discussion. (Since admin have to move discussions to conclusion, they often have to ''act'' on the proposal being made in the tag. But even admin should participate in the discussion, unless the case is fairly non-controversial.) This article's name was far from cut-and-dried, as talk:The Doctors (The Brain of Morbius) is awash with protests about its contents. Generally, if you see a tag at the top of an article that says "talk about it" anywhere in its text, you should first go to the talk page and, well, ''talk about it''. | ||
::*As a general rule, you probably don't want to be moving '''any''' page, except for those that: | ::*As a general rule, you probably don't want to be moving '''any''' page, except for those that: | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
::*As [[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] has pointed out, please be conscious of the structure of our category tree. Except for those categories that are currently engaged in the [[Game of Rassilon]], you don't want to put an article in a parent category, if it's already in a child category. For instance, let's imagine you had a page for a [[boa constrictor]]. You would want to put that page into [[:category:snakes]]. But you '''wouldn't''' put it into [[:category:reptiles]], as well — because [[:category:snakes]] itself is in [[:category:reptiles]]. Why does this matter? Well, it makes routine maintenance of the database more difficult because it creates [[recursion]]. There are enough pockets of recursion caused by those categories involved in the [[Game of Rassilon]]. We don't need to make more. | ::*As [[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] has pointed out, please be conscious of the structure of our category tree. Except for those categories that are currently engaged in the [[Game of Rassilon]], you don't want to put an article in a parent category, if it's already in a child category. For instance, let's imagine you had a page for a [[boa constrictor]]. You would want to put that page into [[:category:snakes]]. But you '''wouldn't''' put it into [[:category:reptiles]], as well — because [[:category:snakes]] itself is in [[:category:reptiles]]. Why does this matter? Well, it makes routine maintenance of the database more difficult because it creates [[recursion]]. There are enough pockets of recursion caused by those categories involved in the [[Game of Rassilon]]. We don't need to make more. | ||
::*You do want to be careful about applying "companion" categories to people. We've had long debates (see the behind the scenes section of [[companion]] for links to threads) about who counts and who doesn't. If a person doesn't appear on {{tl|companions of the Sixth Doctor}}, you should probably ask a question first at [[forum:reference desk]] as to whether it'd be okay to consider that character as a companion. I'm not altogether sure, for instance, you can justify [[Sabalom Glitz]] as a companion of the [[Sixth Doctor]]. | ::*You do want to be careful about applying "companion" categories to people. We've had long debates (see the behind the scenes section of [[companion]] for links to threads) about who counts and who doesn't. If a person doesn't appear on {{tl|companions of the Sixth Doctor}}, you should probably ask a question first at [[forum:reference desk]] as to whether it'd be okay to consider that character as a companion. I'm not altogether sure, for instance, you can justify [[Sabalom Glitz]] as a companion of the [[Sixth Doctor]]. | ||
::*Also, avoid using categories to make controversial points. Categories are what are used by the bot to perform hundreds of thousands of small edits. Certain things are ''expected'' by the bot, and by me as the operator of the bot. Sometimes I perform actions on '''[Number] Doctor companions''' categories. I need to sort of know what's in that category. I'm not going to expect, for instance, that [[K9 Mark III]] is in [[:category:Tenth Doctor companions]]. Or that [[Paul McGann]] is in [[:category:Actors who portrayed the Master]]. I'm not at all saying that you have to report every category change to me. That would be ridiculous. But you don't want to overreach with categories and use them to say something with them. The point of a category is organisation. It's not really to say something the article doesn't. If you tried to establish in the [[Paul McGann]] article that he actually played the Master, it'd probably be struck down fairly quickly. Far as I know, he ''doesn't'' actually play the Master anyway; Roberts' face is merely superimposed on his. Understand that '''I do want you to use and have fun with categories'''. But if you get to a point where you think, "Actually, this is kinda debatable", '''don't use that category'''. Categories should only be for really solid facts. Paul McGann absolutely is one of those | ::*Also, avoid using categories to make controversial points. Categories are what are used by the bot to perform hundreds of thousands of small edits. Certain things are ''expected'' by the bot, and by me as the operator of the bot. Sometimes I perform actions on '''[Number] Doctor companions''' categories. I need to sort of know what's in that category. I'm not going to expect, for instance, that [[K9 Mark III]] is in [[:category:Tenth Doctor companions]]. Or that [[Paul McGann]] is in [[:category:Actors who portrayed the Master]]. I'm not at all saying that you have to report every category change to me. That would be ridiculous. But you don't want to overreach with categories and use them to say something with them. The point of a category is organisation. It's not really to say something the article doesn't. If you tried to establish in the [[Paul McGann]] article that he actually played the Master, it'd probably be struck down fairly quickly. Far as I know, he ''doesn't'' actually play the Master anyway; Roberts' face is merely superimposed on his. Understand that '''I do want you to use and have fun with categories'''. But if you get to a point where you think, "Actually, this is kinda debatable", '''don't use that category'''. Categories should only be for really solid facts. Paul McGann absolutely is one of those "category:actors who appeared in Sea of Souls". He is '''not''' someone who '''unambiguously''' played the Master. | ||
::*To answer your question at [[talk:Twelfth Doctor]], redirections on articles titled '''[Number] Doctor''' are flatly disallowed, as implied by [[T:DOCTORS]]. Such articles should ''only'' be the ''actual'', proper incarnation of the Doctor. Obviously we're going to need [[Twelfth Doctor]] by 2014-ish, so we're not goin to allow its usage prior to our first encountered with the "real" number 12. | ::*To answer your question at [[talk:Twelfth Doctor]], redirections on articles titled '''[Number] Doctor''' are flatly disallowed, as implied by [[T:DOCTORS]]. Such articles should ''only'' be the ''actual'', proper incarnation of the Doctor. Obviously we're going to need [[Twelfth Doctor]] by 2014-ish, so we're not goin to allow its usage prior to our first encountered with the "real" number 12. | ||
::*Please note that [[T:HEAD SC]] requires you to use sentence case, not title case, in headers. That is, headers must be <code>Like this</code> not <code>Like This</code>. I noticed on a few occasions you seemed to want to introduce title case, as at [[Ninth Doctor]], where you used "Post-Regeneration" instead of "Post-regeneration" and "Ear;u Adventures" instead of "Early adventures". Why is this tiny detail important? See [[T:HEAD LINK]]. | ::*Please note that [[T:HEAD SC]] requires you to use sentence case, not title case, in headers. That is, headers must be <code>Like this</code> not <code>Like This</code>. I noticed on a few occasions you seemed to want to introduce title case, as at [[Ninth Doctor]], where you used "Post-Regeneration" instead of "Post-regeneration" and "Ear;u Adventures" instead of "Early adventures". Why is this tiny detail important? See [[T:HEAD LINK]]. | ||
::And with all that said, I now remove your block. I hope that you'll take my and [[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]]'s comments constructively. '''We absolutely do want you here editing with us.''' If you have any questions, please don't be a stranger! {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | ::And with all that said, I now remove your block. I hope that you'll take my and [[user:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]]'s comments constructively. '''We absolutely do want you here editing with us.''' If you have any questions, please don't be a stranger! {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}00:50: Mon 09 Jan 2012 </span> | ||
==Eleventh Doctor== | ==Eleventh Doctor== | ||
| Line 73: | Line 72: | ||
== Edits reverted at Third Doctor == | == Edits reverted at Third Doctor == | ||
Please note that nothing from BBV can be placed into an article about any character for which BBV did not enjoy legal use of the copyright. This basically means that nothing in a BBV production has anything to do with the Doctor or the Master, even if that's wha the narrative seems to be implying. We have a very broad church here, but we draw the line at unlicensed usage of characters and situations. BBV, in general, only had licenses from the writers who owned copyright, and not the BBC. The BBC fully owns the Doctor and the Master, so therefore anything written about the Doctor and the Master in a non-BBC production can't be used in in-universe article.s {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | Please note that nothing from BBV can be placed into an article about any character for which BBV did not enjoy legal use of the copyright. This basically means that nothing in a BBV production has anything to do with the Doctor or the Master, even if that's wha the narrative seems to be implying. We have a very broad church here, but we draw the line at unlicensed usage of characters and situations. BBV, in general, only had licenses from the writers who owned copyright, and not the BBC. The BBC fully owns the Doctor and the Master, so therefore anything written about the Doctor and the Master in a non-BBC production can't be used in in-universe article.s {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}19:55: Mon 16 Jan 2012 </span> | ||
==Species and enemies== | ==Species and enemies== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 87: | ||
Permanently blocked | Permanently blocked | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
This user has now been permanently banned from editing this wiki because of violations of [[T:SOCK]]. His or her other account, which he or she tried to use while this account was blocked, is [[User:Tirenifs]]. Our policies provide for immediate, permanent blocking in such a case. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | This user has now been permanently banned from editing this wiki because of violations of [[T:SOCK]]. His or her other account, which he or she tried to use while this account was blocked, is [[User:Tirenifs]]. Our policies provide for immediate, permanent blocking in such a case. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}20:20: Mon 13 Feb 2012 </span> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
{{Christmas greetings}} | |||
