User talk:Edokter/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Edokter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 18:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen

Sure, thanks for your work, your courtesy, and for the heads up. Happy editing! —Lowellian (reply) 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

My problem with that is that now the current Snowball doesn't have an infobox, which she probably should. -- Scorpion 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

semiconductors vs tubes.

Hi, tubes run on voltages, and so the bias on a tube is a voltage. (grid current is a no-no.) the base of a transitor would have a bias curent. the bias on a tube does effect the plate current.cmacd 13:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tubes in audio amplifiers usually oprate in push/pull mode where each tube seves the positive and negative side of the signal. That means one of the tubes in a pair is always 'idle', in which case it requires an idle current, which is usually called the bias. But I may have mixed up my biases. --Edokter (Talk) 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I put some info on my talk page.cmacd 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User evading block (from WP:ANI)

Sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't have time to explain much. Anyway, it was the 2 IPs you mentioned and 87.194.22.183 (talk · contribs). They seem to have stopped now, so there's really no point in reposting it to WP:ANI. –Llama man^talk_contribs 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cass Ole, etc.

Great photo! Will Wikipedia let us keep it? Copyright and fair use guidelines have cost us a lot of good horse images! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I've just been finding screen shots from the movie wherever I can and using a fair use rationale or the movie screen shot language for the upload, see what I did with the photo of Cass Ole that I used in Black (horse). As far as finding free images, your guess is as good as mine. Montanabw 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Popcorn deelites.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Popcorn deelites.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares

Unless you can provide some info on this UK version of "Kitchen Nightmares" (and not "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares") then the article's name doesn't need the "US TV series" identifier, per WP:NAME's naming conventions. You should only be adding identifiers for two items with the exact name, whether it's a person or a television program. --Madchester 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from further edits against official policy (WP:NAME) or you may be blocked. Thanks. --Madchester 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Edokter! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion on Huntington Beach High School

Hi there. You reverted an edit that was made in good faith and in good taste, although I also know that your revert was meant to be helpful as well. The edit was a revert of someone changing the phrase African American to the classification 'Black'. The truth is, either would suffice and seeing as the table uses the classification of 'White' rather than Caucasian, it is also more accurate. Just a reminder that we should try our best not to bite the newcomers. If you disagree with my take on it, feel free to get back to me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! Wes! • ^T_c 06:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of Blue Ribbon

See This new RfArb. DES ^(talk) 23:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In this edit my RfArb has been deleteds by one arbcom member who wants to keep this off-wiki. Will you endorse an RFC agaisnt the ArbCom member for this action? DES ^(talk) 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine

I'm fine, thanks, I was just offline for the night. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one asking... I just fixed a really wide textbox. --Edokter (Talk) 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Last of the Time Lords

Just a note to let you know that the comment "original research" in my edit referred to the edit by User:EHStormcrow. Looks like we just happened to hit the article at the same time, the false edit summary was not intentional. Cheers. -- MisterHand 19:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Black_stallion_returns_poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Black_stallion_returns_poster.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 01:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

red links

[1] --Rambutan (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it official policy to remove red-links?--Rambutan (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page. --Edokter (Talk) 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned

Hi, just a friendly word of advice: rather than persevering with discussion in its currently heated state, it might be best to wait for others to comment on the Village Pump or on the VotD talk page, and then respond by citing current lack of sources etc. Time and policy are on our side, here; patience (which our mutual acquaintance lacks) is likely the best course. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mark (Digby?). You're right, I sometimes lack patience. But you and I seem to be the only one responding to him. I really wish more people were involved. Anyway, I already told him I'm not going to try to argue with him anymore. --Edokter (Talk) 19:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it time: either other people will turn up, in which case it's a good thing to have extra input. Or they don't, which also has its brighter side. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Re your edit here [2] you forgot "Run".  :-) Kelpin 12:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Forgot that one. I mean, I ran out of space :) --Edokter (Talk) 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nag's Head Fable

Is cited and is an important legend that has arisen in several other articles on Wikipedia. It is a stub, yet has room to grow into an article. Somebody already removed the Speedy Delete, but I thought I'd make my case here, anyway. SECisek 20:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you are correct, it is gibberish. Yet the story got legs in the early XVII century and was still being passed off as fact within the last century. It is legit as an article and is already linked to by a few other articles. Thanks for your intrest.--:SECisek 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Demonstration test

Hello! You asked me to put a message on your talkpage for a demonstration. I think your creation is a good idea, and I'd like to test it out! So, here goes, Lradrama 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi LraDrama, and welcome back so soon :) --Edokter (Talk) 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh that worked well! Yes, I would vote for that to be at least tested for some weeks with everyone! It is a fine idea, and I hope it goes a long way! With regards, Lradrama 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

VitrA (sanitaryware)

hello

i am trying to create a page of Vitra turkey, because they are a cool company who works with great designers such as matteo thun and ross lovegrove.

however i dont want to make a promotional page of them.

You are welcome to help me modifying the page and make it look great, like the other vitra company page, which looks really great !

regards J mcandrews —Preceding unsigned comment added by J mcandrews (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 July 2007

2007/08 Premier League Results

Hi - This article is a copyright violation and as such needs to be speedily deleted. This overrides AfD, so I've re-applied the CSD tag. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have explained this at the AfD page. Your criteria is not valid, as the page in itself is not a copyvio. Don't try and force the issue. I like to see it go as wel, but within process. Tag removed. Do not revert. --Edokter (Talk) 23:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine. I sent it to WP:ANI instead. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

NEDA_(disambig)

I didn't realize that NEDA itself was just a redirect, there is no need for NEDA_(disambig), so go ahead and delete it. I already moved the contents to NEDA.

My main point is that NEDA (National Electronic Distributors Association) is a minor standards body in North America, like ANSI and sometimes sets standards (like names for batteries) for things that ANSI has not. The article List of battery sizes has "ANSI/NEDA" for alternate names and the NEDA redirects to National Educational Debate Association which makes no sense. Just trying to clear that up. Also there are like 40 groups that use NEDA, some of which are very notable. Just giving you a heads up.

Tiki God 00:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiki, The point of tagging NEDA was that there really is no point in having a disambiguation page if the articles don't exist. If you're going to write an article on the National Electronic Distributors Association, then by all means, create a disambig page then, but until then, you shouldn't run ahead of yourself. I'm turning NEDA back into a redirect for now. Regards. --Edokter (Talk) 00:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, but the point of having a disambig page with links to several non-existent articles is that someone might decide to make those articles, even before I get around to making the NEDA (trade group). I'm sure that NEDA (eating disorders) would be a prime candidate for that. If I have to make 4 stubs to follow the 'wiki-law to the letter' then so be it.

Tiki God 00:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough

I didn't know it was on digital but it still isn't a main episode is it? thanks. --Wiggstar69 11:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

D'Oh!

Yup... thanks for fixing that.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who story chronology

On your comment you said that it would never get completed. Well I would just like to tell you (I'm not starting a fight here, just letting you know) that in all my spare time I will get it finished but it will take a while. You can trust me on that. VitasV 31/7/2007

RE: My monobook

What program would you say works for me? If TW won't work for IE what will? Lord Sesshomaru 02:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Depending on what you want to do, have a look at Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools. It also lists several stand-alone programs that run on Windows. — Edokter • Talk • 09:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

LOE

No, it was not pointless at all — It was correcting bad grammar. Just because you can't see it doesn't make it pointless. Wikipedia is forked and not every fork uses the same setup and the dates appear misformatted in popups. Matthew 11:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Euro sign font

I'm sorry, but what? Garamond doesn't do the sign justice? All the other currency signs have their little example in a serif font, why should the euro sign be the exception?

Furthermore, using a serif font shows the typographic adaptation of the sign in stark contrast to the euro logo, frequently mistaken for the one and only euro sign. Which is also what I have tried to show with my "euro sign in several fonts" graphic, which you have so lovingly downsized and pushed downwards as you added your blue square and cluttered the page even more than it already was.

I disagree with all your edits in the euro sign article (but have respectfully refrained from editing it all back), but this font issue takes the cake. SergioGeorgini 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes, but being a relatively new sign, I do think that a sans-serif font better fits the Euro sign, simply because it matches the original design better (it is also not a 'logo'). The differences in typography is very well shown in your graphic.

I added the box because several other currency signs (ie. dollar sign, pound sign) have the same box. I know it's a tight spot, I tried fitting it in and keeping in line with other currency sign pages. I will try and make your graphic more prominent by rearranging the page. But I really think the Euro sign should be shown sans-serif. I'll raise it on the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to Arial. There seems to be no input on the talk page, which makes you the only one to object. And since I put the box there in the first place, I do feel I have a little more weight in the dicision (admittedly childish as it may sound). — Edokter • Talk • 07:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything works!

Hi! I just tried Template:Rounded with IE6 (using Virtual PC) and everything seems fine now. It's also okay on IE7 and firefox. Thanks again for your help! Freestyle 11:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There are still some minor glitches though (ie. the yellow box on the template page itself is missing a line), and some content may screw up the bottom. But at least it is working in most cases. — Edokter • Talk • 11:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean the bottom line or the top line? You might try increasing the height of the missing line with 1 or 2 pixels. Don't forget that changing the template page creates a caching delay for the page itself (the template-page will call upon the previous version), you can solve this by doing another 'dummy' save (no changes necessary) after you made a change (or maybe just purging will work too). Freestyle 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean the bottom few divs. And tweaking the values may fix it in one situation, but only makes it worse in others. I think it behaves best as it is now. — Edokter • Talk • 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Compact Disc data structure

Hi Edokter,

Nice work in tracking down old mirrored versions of the Compact Disc page, I'm about to add comments to its Discussion page and will probably incorporate what you found out into the main article if I have time, especially if I can confirm it with reference to some reputable sources. With specific numbers and terminology, I hold out some hope. --Dynamicimanyd 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

CD

“ That is an urban legend, even the Dutch Wiki article states so. Plus the source (a popular tech blog) is not all that authorative on the subject. --Edokter, 01:11, 17 August 2007 ”

Bah, it was too good to be true anyway. :) User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Razor

The TV infobox is for TV series and not for TV movies thats why its not good for Razor. Tiger Trek 13:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that it seems entirely appropriate, given that Razor is a project developed for television. Edokter's change also allows for the proper display of the desired fields, without having to resort to an ugly "kludge". I've restored the 'box, while maintaining the refs. Tiger Trek added. (Thanks for those, by the way.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not accuse me of making a "bad-faith nomination" or being a "single-purpose account". I gave valid arguments for the deletion of the template, and engaged in a constructive discussion. Kindly stop your personal attacks. Genokutos 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I may have erred on the 'bad faith nomination', but being an SPA is not a personal attack, and it is what you created the account for. In any event, the nomination was a clear case of WP:SNOW; noone else wants it deleted. — Edokter • Talk • 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Genokutos 00:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia Protestor

You dont give your email address, so I can't forward the email - I am satisfied that it is relicensed:

Hi, I've just uploaded your cartoon to wikipedia and incorrectly licensed it as CC 2.5 by Attributable (without the by-nc). Do you want me to put a deletion tag on it? or will you relicese [sic] it for wikipedia's sake. It was the funniest thing I have seen. Michael West 5th July 2007

Oh, I mentioned just now to another user that I was happy to relicense it. Randall Munroe 14th July 2007

You can see the emails if you want but this does only relate to Wikipedia Protestor. I hope this helps Mike33 - t@lk 15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com external links

Hello, Edokter. I'm stopping by your talk page to ask you why are you removing AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com external links from articles? Well, I know that your main reasoning may be that it is unrelated to the article. But I must state that if it has an interview concerning what the article is about, that is relevant to the article, of course. Flyer22 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am only removing those links that are added by a linkspammer (131.191.10.175). Most (if not all) are interviews with the subject of the article, and generally add nothing to the article itself. In case that the AfterElton links do add value, and when used as a reference, I leave them well alone. But the links that 131.191.10.175 added generally add nothing to the article. Feel free te revert in case you think I removed a link that is relevant. — Edokter • Talk • 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Oh, I see, Edokter. Thank you for explaining. I was basically curious to know your main reason. I haven't read the interview provided by AfterElton.com that was in the Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer article as an external link yet, but from the way that it was labeled, I assume that it's an interview which talks about the Luke and Noah storyline, and I was wondering why it was removed, which perked my interest to your edits for today. I'll check it out later and see if it's relevant to that article. But, anyway, you're doing your job as a Wikipedian, of course. See you around. Flyer22 20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Again, for anyone else, if you think I was too bold, feel free to revert; my main goal was to undo the linkspammer's work. — Edokter • Talk • 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Exiting Worlds (Torchwood)

The ProD's been removed with this spectacular feat of logic: all we need do is write "unconfirmed" next to the title, and it's all better. I'm strongly tempted to fill out the AfD form myself. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've already picked up on this. Never mind. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to wait a bit to see if he'll put up the {{db-author}} tag (probably not) and then put it up on AfD. Isn't Wikipedia fun? — Edokter • Talk • 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a cavalcade of wonder, it really is. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Talkback nominated for deletion

Hello. I have nominated a template you created for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_14#Template:Talkback.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin

I've seen you on wiki in various places and it's caught my eye. I think you'd make a good admin. I'd nominate you when you feel ready. What are you thoughts? The only issue I can see is that some feel admins need lots of edits and you have about 1300 mainspace edits, and over 2000 total edits. It may be worthwhile to get this up some before an attempt at RFA. Let me know your thoughts. Just responsd here.Rlevse 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence. I wasn't expecting sometime like this anytime soon. 2000 already? That creeps up faster then I thought. I've actually been thinking about nominating myself, but never went through, mostly because the current RfA setup does demand a lot on admin nominees in terms of editcount and how many projects they're involved in. On the other hand, I've seen people become admin quite easily. What it basically comes down to is: it is never a good time to run for admin, which in turn translates to: now is as good as time as any. So, if you think I could make a good admin, then please nominate me. It can go either way, but it will none the less be a valuable learning ecperience! — Edokter • Talk • 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're both competent and level headed. Those are good qualities. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mark :) — Edokter • Talk • 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, go here to accept, then I'll proceed with the process:

Rlevse 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted and answered the question. I hope they are any good... I have already transcluded it to the main RfA page. — Edokter • Talk • 22:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The answers look good to me, now we just wait and see what happens. If anyone asks extra questions, answer them as quickly and honestly as you can. If anyone says anything unpleasant, keep your cool.Rlevse 23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse. It's 1:00 AM here and tomorrow is work, so I won't be back until 15:00 UCT. — Edokter • Talk • 23:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wikipedian protester.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedian protester.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Uf008620.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Uf008620.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Compact Disc: Logos

This is not an image "gallery" -- it's a reference collection of the authoritative logos for the various different compact disc formats. That these logos all look similar is hardly surprising, but they nonetheless are quite distinct, and each one serves a specific purpose. Are you actually familiar with compact disc standards, or are you simply rushing to judgment? Why have you summarily deleted the section again without meaningful discussion? --John Navas 02:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the thumb attributes on the logos, which thus wiped out the borders and captions? And what is the authority? Thanks. --John Navas 20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just though they looked less cluttered; they captions are still in the hints. And like any other editor, I don't have 'authority'. Anyone can edit. — Edokter • Talk • 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think so, but wanted to be sure, and give you the courtesy of a chance to make your feelings known in advance before undoing the change (even though you haven't shown me that same courtesy).

I prefer them with borders and captions, like the other images on that page, as I created them.

Are you just trying to annoy me? Can't you think of some more constructive contribution to make?

--John Navas 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator! If you haven't already, now is the time to visit the Wikipedia:New admin school and look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 23:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Some notes I made may help you. Rlevse 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for the nomination. Know of any good RfA thanks templates? — Edokter • Talk • 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No I don't. Most people make their own.Rlevse 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, to the drawing board... — Edokter • Talk • 23:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See typos I fixed on your thanks msg. Very nice looking by the way.Rlevse 12:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for the typos. Template is here: User:Edokter/rfa. — Edokter • Talk • 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, congratulations and good luck! My talk page is always open if you have any questions. Neil ム 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

More congrats from me! Curiously, I see you have an account on the Dutch Wikipedia, yet most of your participation is here. Is the English Wikipedia more fun? (Don't be afraid to say yes!). More seriously, are there a lot of articles only available in Dutch that should have equivalents here? (Obviously an open-ended question.. ). EdJohnston 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No problems, I was more than happy to add my support. Have fun with it. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats and you are welcome. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

You are very welcome. I'm very glad to see that you passed. Well done and happy editing! Lradrama 17:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Uf008620.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Uf008620.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin tip

When you delete things, remove everything except the reason from that text box that comes up. The reason is that the text in that box stays in the logs forever and if it has thing likes libel, slander, offensive terms, etc,....you get the idea.Rlevse 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will remember that. Thanks. — Edokter • Talk • 19:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your RfA

I actually meant to do this sooner, but you are welcome for the support. :) Acalamari 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Dear Edokter, first let me say (belated) Congratulations on your new adminship!! I hope the mop and bucket serve you well :) I just wanted to let you know about the procedure for closing AfDs. First of all, thank you SO MUCH for deleting and closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draafstein, we need more admins working in AfD and it really helps a lot that you're there. If you check the AfD I linked above, I changed the closing format a little from what you had, namely subst:ing the top and bottom templates and moving the header and deletion rationale to a different place. This is pretty minor stuff, but I wanted to make sure you knew the standard format and to subst the templates. Thanks so much again and keep up the great work :) All the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I was actually looking for a closed AfD to see how to properly do it, but couldn't find any. (Nominator forgot to subst AfD2 template as well). I'll be hanging around AfD a lot more in the future. — Edokter • Talk • 11:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've closed a few speedied AfDs, and each time I was on the hunt for the proper procedure, but finally I bookmarked it here, if a handy dandy reference can be of service. So glad to hear you're going to be more involved with AfD!! :) ~Eliz81^(C) 15:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Britney

Hi Edokter. This RFPP request is what started the recent protection of Britney Spears's fifth studio album. The move protection was thrown in as a bonus. I think you should restore the semi. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for reminding me. — Edokter • Talk • 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mfd

Regarding the change you just made, a discussion has started at Template talk:Mfd, please feel free to comment there. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing pngfix

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make edits like this one, where you not only acted without any warning but also added || imgStyle.borderWidth == "0px" which you had agreed not to do at Commons:User talk:Edokter/pngtest#I give up... per the reasons I outlined there. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to include that check anyway, because 1) it prevents unnecessary processing with borderless images that have a border style but no width. 2) It will not break the script; The DOM stores zero width as "0px". If in a rare case that property would contain ie. "0em"; the script would simply jump to the span code. Also, this is wikipedia; scripts are tweaked all the time, so please don't panic when someone touches your code. I did ensure the change would not break the script and cause havoc. If you want, ask for a review on Mediawiki talk:common.js. — Edokter • Talk • 20:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Fifth Beatle (film)

Hello, i am just wondering why you deleted my page about the upcoming biopic called The Fifth Beatle. i made that page with info from the producers of the movie and don't see why it would be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterprice (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted it because a large chunck consisted of a copyright violation. You cannot copy any copyrighted text onto Wikipedia. If you avoid copying any text from other websites, it should not be deleted again (providing the article meets all other criteria). — Edokter • Talk • 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterprice (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Four Months Later...

I don't think the ellipsis character is "freaky" at all (and it's a bit more gramatically correct). Will ^(talk) 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the need to use an ellipsis (how do you type that anyway?) when three dots look and work the same. — Edokter • Talk • 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Four Months Later…

Have you ever heard of a redirect? Why is it difficult for you to enter an ellipsis? … <- I just did it with ease. Perhaps you should of stated you were moving it per MoS originally, rather than stating your opinion that you find an ellipsis "funky". Matthew 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have mentioned MoS, but I don't want to be a policy/guideline-quoter. How did you enter the ellipses? — Edokter • Talk • 15:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I entered the alt code (0133). There are times when it is best to quote policy or guidelines, anyway. Understandably not everyone knows the alt code, as such a redirect for people entering three full-stops would have worked, imo. Matthew 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Greengreg

I see you're online. Pls take a look at Greengreb on WP:ANI for me. I was involved in it-;) Rlevse 18:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, with his last edits over 12 hours ago, what would you advise? Indef block as SPA? — Edokter • Talk • 18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

SPAs are not inherently bad nor blockable just for that reason. They to have disruption, vandalism, etc tied to them. This guy, obviously was trying to be disruptive. I'd at least give him a 3 or higher warning. FYI, if an account starts out as vandalism, it's blockable indef as a vandal only acct, but here, this is more disruption that vandalism. Given the 12 hours, I'd warn and advise GreenJoe to let you know if it returns in a disruptive manner, then block is such a case. Rlevse 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let's see what happens. — Edokter • Talk • 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Starfleet Marines

Why did you delete SFM?--Tomtom9041 15:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a recreated page that has been deteted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Marine Corps). It was deleted according to CSD A4. — Edokter • Talk • 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Hi, I've undone your edits relating to the soundtrack; I disagree with your removal of the first album's image, and resent your having done it with no explanation whatsoever. I also disagree your moving of the Volume 1 page with no discussion whatsoever and very minimal explanation. Cheers,--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that... "Volume 1" isn't even part of the title; that's the main reason I did it. I have to follow naming convention (we all do BTW). As for the image; WP:NFCC forbids the use of fair-use images on articles to which it is not directly related. Lastly, disambiguation pages are only doen when there are three or more article with similair titles. — Edokter • Talk • 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• The two volumes have the same title; we need to distinguish them in some way, or merge the article. A possibility.
• Are you actually saying, on the record, that the article for the second-volume soundtrack is not directly related to the article for the first?
• There are several Doctor Who soundtracks in existence. Actually. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• They are sufficiently disambiguated using the disambig links on top of the page.
• No, the image is not directly related to the 2nd album, therefor it has to go.
• When they have articles, the a disambig page is fine. — Edokter • Talk • 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, since I happen to be right and you don't accept that, let's leave things as they were, and wait for community input. That's the way things are supposed to work round here, I believe.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Only policy can be right here. I've already brought it up on the wikiproject talk. I won't undo the move, but I will remove the image. — Edokter • Talk • 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, quite, I mean, why pass up an oppurtunity to edit-war? You're an admin, after all... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I said I won't undo the moves for now. You know what happens to admin who edit war... It won't happen to me. — Edokter • Talk • 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And you said you would undo the image for now. Actually. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy isn't negociable in this case. — Edokter • Talk • 17:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be, not if it supports your POV.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your move

So far, I count one person in favour of the move, and one person against. From that, you managed to logically deduce that the move should take place... that's really stupid. You are required by policy to wait for community input into this. Nobody is being hurt by the slight delay. Be patient. You are the one being disruptive.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a substantial objection to the moves, please refrain fom reverting them. Simply saying that I have no consensus is a non-argument. These are uncontroversial moves, and as such only require consensus when someone present an argument against the move itself. Again, "no consensus" is not such an argument. — Edokter • Talk • 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have given my objection, but I resent the fact that you ignored this: So far, I count one person in favour of the move, and one person against. From that, you managed to logically deduce that the move should take place... that's really stupid. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why the page should not be moved. — Edokter • Talk • 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Porcupine--calling people stupid will not aid your case. See WP:CIVIL.15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

I've replied to the drivel left at ANI. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bălţi‎

Hi, You can unprotect it. I am not going to modify the page in the near future. If the price for starting a dialog is for his version to stay 1-2 days, I am ready to pay it. (just as a note, if you did not observe already, I suggested as a compromize a version that was one month ago, before the start of the "dispute", but he reverted that as well.) Also, if you decide in the future you could watch the dialog, I would be glad.:Dc76\^talk 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dc, The article's protection expires automatically after six hours (not 1-2 days). By then I hope there will be some dialog at the talk page. This dispute has been brewing for some time now, and when I saw this turning into an edit war, I felt a 6 hour cooling-off period might help. — Edokter • Talk • 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that it will expire automatically in 6 hours. I am saying that I am not going to edit for some time after that as well. 6 hours is too soon to ask for a start of dialog (i.e. first transforming this in a issue by issue list, without repreatitions), as it is night in Europe. I know it was brewing, I just hoped it could have been reduced to 2-3 issues, not an edit war. I am still hoping... If you have time to look over that talk page in 48 hours, I would appreciate very much. :Dc76\^talk 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, note that the protection did not automatically expire in 6 hours.:Dc76\^talk 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did, but the template doesn't automatically disappear. — Edokter • Talk • 11:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OIC, no problem, thank you. (now I understand why one always does 2 edits to protect/unprotect). I have introduced the issues of contension, dividing them into the smallest pieces so as not to mix them. I have identified 27 issues. If you are interested, read a couple issues a day, check with the article, and with whatever else you want to check, and write your oppinion about every particular issue (for simple ones, 1 sentence should be enough, for complicated ones maybe, we can postpone and start separate discussions). In several days-one week we should be able to eliminate 15-20 issues, I hope. Again, if you are interested and have time. :Dc76\^talk 14:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For your reference. I hope the issue will not develop. Sorry you were caught into this. I will understand if you prefer to stay apart.:Dc76\^talk 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help edit the article, as my knowledge about Bălţi is zero. But I will keep an eye out on how the dispute develops. — Edokter • Talk • 15:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervension against PA.

Editting the article for you could be indeed quite complicated. Of course, if you see something you can do, some small edits, you can do them anytime. If you keep an eye on the talk page, though, that would be very considerate of you. You can also participate in the discussion there to the extent you can (it is quite possible that 5-6 of them are accessible for any outsider), and have time. You can also do something else very helpful: in about 5-7 days we will have to implement the results of the discussion, item by item. Then you could check the differences and say 'yes/no, this does/does not correspond to what was discussed'. For example, if me or Moldopodo find ourselves alone on some issue, and everyone says the opposite, or both of us disagree with a neutral proposal, you could say us "sorry, you would have to conceed on this one". ::whatever will happen, thank you for your time:Dc76\^talk 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

De omstrede bewerken door Dc76 (Bălţi site)

Edekter, ik heb zojuist uw overlegspagina gevonden. Leest u alstublieft mijn gebruikerspagina om te begrijpen de door User:Dc76 omstrede bewerken, die het artikel Bălţi vernielen. Dank u. Moldopodo 19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Please work it out on the talk page, where Dc76 has listed his concers point by point. I cannot verify any data on the article. I read your page, and pointing fingers at other editors is regarded as uncivil, so I advice you to remove his name from your user page. — Edokter • Talk • 19:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I have answered 23 of his 27 "points", not one of my concerns was answered so far. I wonder when a Wikipedia adminstrator started to define what's civil and what's uncivil? The reference to Dc76 was given as an example and will be left there. It's up to the reader to interpret its meaning. Dc76 pretends not to be a nationalist, but leaves vandalising nationalist remarks, related to Romania on a site dedicated to a city in Moldova. I think this is unacceptable, and you?

Moldopodo 13:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Give it time, don't expect immediate answers. Also, what is civil is defined by policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks). Calling someone a nationalist is regarded a personal attack, violating policy and therefor subject to immediate removal. — Edokter • Talk • 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody was called a nationalist. I am afraid you have simply misread the text or are trying to change the history. I am very surpised by your actions. Moldopodo 19:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Editing by Edoketer of Moldopodo user page

Here is a copy of your message:

Personal attack "Edits expressing nationalism, political views, personal opinions or simpy false statements, like those made in the past by User:Dc76..." can defenitely be considered a personal attack; it puts another editor in a bad light. This is simply not allowed, so I am removing it once again. — Edokter • Talk • 20:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moldopodo"

• I repeat again, that Dc76 was not called nationalist personally, but his edits did express nationalism and the reference to his edits will remain as an example to avoid future modifications. If Dc76 did make edits in such a way, why would you care not to put him in bad light and say now that Dc76 did not do such edits, that's my question?

I invite you to undo your edit in my user page and I am sure good faith will prevail in dialog between us two. By the way I wonder where do you look when Dc76 has recourse to words like chauvinisme directly in my regard, as well as calling me cynically a smart man? Is it all civilised in your view? I there may be a hint on personal attack?... Moldopodo 20:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Moldopodo, the act of deleting from a list of city district everyone that is not of Russian origin, I qualified as chauvinism, and I still stand by it. I did not spoke of you, but of a very particular thing you did. It will stop being chauvinism when you will put those city neighborhood names back.

• Dc76, how do you qualify deleting Russian names of districts by yourself? I hve deleted all names alltogether, both Russian and Moldavian. Stop lying.Moldopodo 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Moldopodo, there is another issue here. When answering you broke my argument into pieces. Then, I regathered it together, and asked you to leave it intact (see the comments of my edits at the article's talk page). You can reformulate your arguments, but I insist - please do not brake mine. I do consider that by doing so when a delicate issue is presented you undermine my arguments. The same goes for the last section you introduced. You overload the whole talk page with, frankly I believe that is, Soviet propaganda. You start section over section to create the impression that your oppinion is dominate. Answer directly for every issue, or rather your arguments for the entire thing in one section, or do both. But please, allow me to express my argumetns as well. "Dc76\^talk 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Dc76, in fact it is your irrelevant answer-comments, unfounded demagogy make your answers so much longer. Dc76 is making in fact a chat out of his/her comments by responding as well to comments of other editors on completely irrelevant topics. It would be so much simplier to provide a link and a verifiable resource instead of speaking with empty arguments, often your personal ideas. You have just piled up all of my answers at the end, so an ordinary reader would have no idea which phrase they go with. Their insertion right after the concerned passages is essential in order to understand what is criticized. Moldopodo 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Dc76 persists and has re-edited by putting all my arguments in one pile, so no one knows to which phrase/statement they are attached exactly.Moldopodo 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Moldopodo, your user page is not the place to critisize other editors; anyone can judge editors for their actions by looking at their history; you do not need to point them out. If you do have a problem with an editor, you express your critisism on their talk page, but not on your userpage. Making an example of Dc76 benefits noone. Please review the user page and no personal attacks policies. Also, "preventing future modifications" is not what Wikipedia is about; you don't own an article.

• The reference was made here to future modifiations with nationalist contents, like Dc76 did. I forgot to characterize modificiations, sorry. No need to refer to the ownnership of the page here. Moldopodo 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I will not revert my edit; I am merely following policy. You and Dc76 are in dialog now; please continue doing so. I would hate having to block one of you for somthing trivial as this. — Edokter • Talk • 20:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is another one (in the answer for issue number 17): People who left for Russsia and Ukraine had for home Moldova as well, they were born in Moldova, but had to flee in front of people like Dc76, outright nationalsts, trying to assimilate everything to Romanian and to rewrite the history on the expense of people's lives. Does the presentation of an argument benefit from such insults? Maybe Moldopodo, could look at the decisions here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren, at the very end, 10 and 11. Moldopodo, you are still some way from there, but going a stright way. Maybe if you read it, you would become less agressive. :Dc76\^talk 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your appreciation

Edokter, I repeat to you that there was no calling Dc76 nationalist. Please review the applicable texts and my exact citation, and consequently review your apprecation. Thank you.

Edokter, apologies for filling your talk page with this, but please qualify these statements in my regard by Dc76:

• If you personally are/were apparatchik of the 1940s-1980s, if you personally were a member of NKVD/MGB and shot people, then yes, I have a problem with you. If you are son/doughter of an engeneer who arrived in the city during 1970s or 1980s, then believe me, you are the last of my worries.

• See this, smart man. Who deleted? YOU deleted. Do you even know how to edit wp without deleting other people's work?:

• Please, no offence, but a child knows that...

• I am afraid that Moldopodo does not know well enouth the Romanian language and theirfore makes his confusion

• Moldopodo, this is ridiculous. Do you know Romanian? Tell honestly! If you don't know the language of your own country even at a very-very simple level, proved by the fact that even with a dictionary you make mistakes in a word that means the name of the city you live in, then please... give us a brake with your super-knowledge of the language you don't bother learn even at an elementary level.

• Alternatively, go to the library, pick up a dictionary, and make a small effort to learn a few words in the official language of your own country. It is a very simple language to learn, it is not Chinese or Hungarian to have to learn from zero. Foreigners come to Moldova and in 1 year speak the language. You live there for 20+ years and don't bother. Instead you blame people of nationalism. And what is your lack of knowledge of Romanian, not nationalism? Noone asks you to write literature, but 1,000-2,000 words anyone can learn.

• This is a sign of increased demands and increased agressiveness when there are contraditions. It is not something specific to Moldopodo only. It is the traditional Soviet way of negotiating: they tell you X. If you don't accept it, they demand X+Y. They add Y as a revenge that you deared contradict them.

• On the same tokken, I object to the increased demands, a policy of "revenge" used for agressive "negociations".""

• This is another issue introduced as increased demaind, as revenge. Moldopodo has erased the names of the city neighborhods, because they are not of Russian origin. Only one name, BAM, which is on Russian origin was left. This is defined in dictionaries as shovinism.

additionally: To Illythr: why not? there are districts with 30,000+ inhabitants, while we have separate articles for localities. I don't say a separate article, on the contrary. But what is wrong with giving the names of the districts? All developed wikipedia articles of cities do so. To Moldopodo: Russian is not the official language in the city. By the way, you even misspelled some names in Russian.:Dc76\talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Is that piece of info (any of the district names) really all that useful? --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Disagre with Dc76,this is just another vandalism by Dc76 on this article - This info is certainly useful as it explains the city's structure, as well a shows what was the positive impact of USSR on Bălţi, as a good part of these distcricts did not even exist before. Please, do not pay attention to chauvinisme accusations of Dc76, it's a simple lie to cover Dc76's chauvinisme systematically erasing Russian names of the districts. Here is what was initially edited, both in Moldavian and Russian, deleted later by Dc76: Some city neighborhoods bear the names of the former 19th century suburbs (Romanian/Russian) respectively): Pământeni/Поментены, Slobozia/Слободзея, Molodovo/Молодово, Bălţul Nou/Новые Бельцы, Podul Chişinăului/Кишинёвский Мост; some are known by their Soviet-era names: 8th district, 9th district; or other names: Autogara/Автовокзал (which means the inter-city coach station), Dacia/Дачия or colloquially called BAM/БАМ (this completely new district was rapidly built during the Soviet times on the unpopulated before territory), as referred to Baikal Amur Mainline - which name is colloquially preferred to the official Dacia, as referred to the land of the Daci. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• But he has introduced them on 17 October as increased demaind, and revenge that I deared contradict them in other places.

• Erasing all this information is a desire to clean the history on unconvinable facts: the exaclt same facts that the Soviet propaganda was erasing.

• if anyone wants sourses, one can easily place [citation needed] tags. In a few weeks they will be filled. We are not students at Mr. Moldopodo exams to have to submit all info for his aproval beforehead, and he is not THE redactor/editor to remove what he does not like. He wants references for something, he can put [citation needed] tags any times of the day or night.

• Also, in the last revenge edits, several pargraphs of the history sections were modified. I offered and am offering to discuss and find a more neutral formulation of these. But erasing information is, imho, propaganda. Moldopodo has replaced:...

• This is pro-Soviet propaganda, as it is outrageous even to claim that..

• 21. Ethnic composition according to 1930 census

I understand that it was clasified and crime to write that information during the Soviet period. But what is wrong of writing it now? Disagree with Dc76 - We need a link and a verifiable source here. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Also please, have a look at the last section of Balti talk page, Dc76 categorically refuses to justify Dc76' own edits, hence any dialog and does not provide any links or sources, whereas I did answer all of his 27 points.

Moldopodo 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I like your logic, Moldopodo: Dc76 categorically refuses to justify [...] and does not provide any links or sources, whereas I did answer all of his 27 points. :) So, while I am expected to fill 27 times 2 = cca 80 links (a couple days, if not even a week's work), you only need to answer. :) And your golden words: hence any dialog .... Do you actually realize, that you are using the words of the Stalin's tribunals? I suggest you to read Solzhenitsyn, you can find online. Since it is already late, let me tell a real story and say good night:

During the communist time, in one of the communist coutries, there is a competition: they have to choose 2 best people. There are 3 candidates, and they all write an exam. candidate X receives A, candidate Y receives B, candidate Z receives F. But, the commission was given by the party the instruction go get Z in. So they take X and Z, and justify like this: "Z has a good social upbringing, a true proletarian. With working class determination he has written an exam paper, and has been classified on a honorable third place. Whereas Y, an arogant socially-undesireble element, has been classified the last but one." :) true case, person Y told it on tv after 1989. :Dc76\^talk 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ediktor, apologies for writing everything here, but I have no other choice, instruct me if I should e-mail you somehow privately? Pease have a look at Balti talk page[3], all of my entered questions remained empty. I would also like to ask Dc76 to provide a link and a source with exact citation in a Stalin tribunal. Otherwise, what prevents me to consider this as another personal attack on me? Moldopodo 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Final words

I can no longer help you. My knowledge in the matter is non-existent. My removal of Moldopodo's remarkt from his user page was based solely on policy; such remarkt are not to be made on a user page. (Article) talk pages are different, but the same rules apply: be civil and don't attack other editors. I will ask for attention from other administrators. — Edokter • Talk • 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Rm plot section"

What the hell was this for? It's standard practice to have that sort of thing from shortly before an episode airs.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a synopsis available, then yes. Without even the slightest hint of available information, it is totally unnecessary. — Edokter • Talk • 13:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been =Plot= sections followed by (no info). From which I deduce that there was not even the slightest hint of available information. Actually.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I always remove empty sections; It's easy to re-add them once info becomes available. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, just because you always do something doesn't necessarily make it right and OK. Harold Shipman always murdered people. Obviously it's customary not to, but he always it as soon as it becomes possible.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud... What kind of comparison is that??? — Edokter • Talk • 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggested the general Wikipedian convention. Rather than finding a counter-example, or better still, a policy issue, you said that it's not your convention. That's not a valid discussion point. I suggest the following: On Wikipedia, we have a =Plot= section for all episode/serial articles. If nothing is known, then the section should read (nothing known) or similar. Discuss, providing policy links, counter-examples and pertinent discussion points.

If you can't do that, then give up this debate because you've LOST.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I know of no such policy/guideline or convention regarding empty sections; please link to one. Second, comparing my convention to that one of a murderer is the point where you already lost your debate! — Edokter • Talk • 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the history of almost every Who epsidode article, and you'll find a stage where it said (no details).--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This debate is pointless (as usual). Just because other crap exists doesn't mean we have to follow that standard. Empty sections look unprofessional, that why I remove them. No info = no section. Ask around what others think. — Edokter • Talk • 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to point to a convention. I did so. Stupid of you to ask, if you're just going to ridicule any other answer I give.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sig problem

did you know the link to click for the talk page in both your sig and mine don't work? I'm trying to figure out what the code problem is. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DOH, it doesn't work when you're on your own talk page, I shudda thunk o' dat. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to tell you that (edit conflict). But couldn't you at least pick a different color or something? As sigs are supposed to be unique, and we wouldn't want people to think we're sock puppets. :) — Edokter • Talk • 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, but I can't decide what color. What about dark green and dark gold? Those are the Scouting colors. What are the codes? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I told Ariel I got it from you, gave credit where it's due. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this (#060 and #990)? — Edokter • Talk • 12:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Try this. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I LIKE IT! THANKS! Also, I currently have wiki mail turned off due to someone harrassing me who I blocked, so send email outside of wiki is okay still. I'll turn it back on in a few days. Thanks good buddy! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it :) Now go prance with it :) — Edokter • Talk • 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the dates of rank table in Douglas McArthur. Richard75 17:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. — Edokter • Talk • 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Curious event

Hello Edoktor. Would you please take a look at this thread that I started at the admin noticeboard [4] and see what you can add to the discussion.

As I stated there I know this was not vandalism on your part. Also it is a little harder to figure out what went on as another editor seems to have removed the phone number message that was hidden in the wikicommand. You can't even see the message in the edit history of the Dr Who page anymore. Any help that you can give will be appreciated and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. It looks like it has all been figured out and fixed. I will go back and put in the command that I removed earlier from the list of DW serials page. Sorry for bothering you. MarnetteD | Talk 01:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Inputbox CSS

Hello. Some problems with your changes on {{Inputbox}}, explained at WP:VPT. Regards, — Komusou ^talk @ 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of Jfwg22

Please see WP:ANI#Block of Jfwg22 where I have requested a review of your block of Jfwg22. It appears that the content they were linking to may actually have been a legal venture after all. Cheers --Pak21 09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of them may have been, but then were only watchable from the US; other links presented me with a 'page not found', suggesting the user uploaded them. In any case, he was blocked for link-spamming, not copyright infringement. — Edokter • Talk • 13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Voyage

The article currently has very little content related to the episode itself. Look at it for a moment: half of it is taken up with supposed continuity references to the Titanic, followed by apparent missteps in the reporting process. Yes, Kylie Minogue is going to be in Doctor Who; I'm sure the eventual screencap will reflect that. But we hardly have the necessary critical commentary of her appearance in order to justify the inclusion of a picture of her when (gasp) the episode isn't even out yet. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the sudden change here? That image has been up there for months, and was specifically uploaded for this article, as it directly relates to this episode. And as publicity is duely covered in the article, and the image is a publicity photo, the image definitely has it's place. There is no WP:NFCC violation here (even less so then a screencap), so I see no reason to remove it, so I contest it. Best thing to do is bring it to the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 00:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Will chose to remove it.[5] And I happen to agree with his choice, for reasons explained above (you are wholly wrong if you think there's no WP:NFCC vio here).

I'm now going to revert your edits. What you do next is up to you. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Will may have mistakenly removed it, as he did not revert it's re-inclusion. I have taken it to the talk page; please state exactly the criteria it violates. — Edokter • Talk • 00:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Navbox changes

Hi, the Footy project run the Template:Football manager history and Template:Football squad which runs off the navbox template. All of these now have a box surrounding the VDE links, e.g. Template:Aston Villa F.C. managers. I also don't get the D.E linked when i look at Template:Aston Villa F.C. captains but that is of less concern because i think consensus is to delete it anyway. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Woodym555 21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. — Edokter • Talk • 21:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Template:Aston Villa F.C. managers still has the link around it. (i have purged my cache) Do i need to update the code at Template:Football manager history? Thanks. Woodym555 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to purge each template seperately by adding ?action=purge to the url. — Edokter • Talk • 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have a look at Alex Ferguson, the boxes haven't updated. I have gone round and purged them, but to seemingly no avail. Sorry to keep bugging you! Woodym555 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The color fixes are temporarely reverted. working on a fix. — Edokter • Talk • 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for letting me know. I know that editing it is very complicated and very resources intensive. Thanks Woodym555 22:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great now, i have implemented the fix on the squad template as well and it all works perfectly. Thankyou very much for all your continued hard work! Woodym555 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you beat me on {{Football manager history}}. — Edokter • Talk • 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On inserting the 1 px at the top - how can I use the inheritence to set the height above properly on the boxes where I want some space? I'm guessing I could use a style parameter or something - I'm going to experiment but would appreciate your wisdom!! --Trödel 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just answered on Template talk:Navbox/core. — Edokter • Talk • 21:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, see {{Latter-day Saints}}; I made an edit that explains how to do what you wanted. — Edokter • Talk • 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't know how I missed the comment on .../core talk --Trödel 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello Edokter. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

Physchim62 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[6]

Oh lord. And I thought that the Star (or as I call it, "Daily heat") were the kings of speculation. Will ^(talk) 16:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't actually know about OK! Magazine, News of the World however defenitely is an "Alien ate my husband" type of rag, as far as I know... — Edokter • Talk • 17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the BBC use the layout of one of those goss magazines to parody the "Alien ate my husband" story type on the Torchwood minisite? Will ^(talk) 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't catch that. Is it still online? — Edokter • Talk • 20:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Try accessing the HTML site. Will ^(talk) 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI header

Hey there, saw that you had reverted my additions. It seemed to be working fine for me, are you sure it can't be implemented? GlassCobra 20:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the links appear on the main WP:AN page, so I asumed something was going wrong during transclusion. I use IE6, but will test using Firefox when I get home. (I'll also see what happens when the code is simply put on the page itself... I might even build a pretty template...) — Edokter • Talk • 20:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't for the AN board, just for ANI. I modified only IncidentsHeader for ANI. We can put it on AN, but we'd have to modify the AN header. GlassCobra 20:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got the two mixed up. It didn't show on ANI either. — Edokter • Talk • 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Was this before or after you took it out? Also, if you're going to put the talkback template on my page, can you do it at the bottom? Thanks. :) GlassCobra 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Before (I have Incidentsheader on my watchlist). No ammount of purging made it show up on ANI. I put the code in ANI itself now (slighly tweaked). At least that works :) And the Talkback template was designed to be put at the top of the page (else the built in remove link doesn't work). — Edokter • Talk • 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Okay, well I'm glad it works. Perhaps we should put it on AN and other pages that get particularly long as well? I've got your page on my watchlist, so you don't have to use talkback. GlassCobra 20:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me expiriment first if I can make it work from Incidentsheader (could be my machine at work), then make a template out of it. — Edokter • Talk • 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! Let me know if I can help with anything. GlassCobra 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DOH! I was looking at AN after all... stupidly following the parent link at IncidentsHeader. It works after all. — Edokter • Talk • 23:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! I wanted to ask you: what ended up happening to the bottom and top boxes on ANI? I saw in the revision history that you wanted to move them into the header, but I don't see them. GlassCobra 05:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Show preview - help!

I cant use the show preview button when i am editing wikipedia so I have to save everything i do to see if it works or not, In the case if you were wondering about all those silly edits that I did on Doctor Who, I must have done somthing in my prefrence that disallow it. live a messings on my talk how I can fix it. Or tell me were i can get help if you don´t know how to fix it.(When you have answered me. you can remove this message if you want.) The Tramp 00:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is most likely you are trying to edit a part of a table that is missing the start of the table code ({|). If you want to preview your edits in a table, you have to edit the entire table. The easiest way is to edit a Doctor section (ie. Tenth Doctor), and not on an edit link in a table. That way, the start of the table will also be part of the preview and it will show properly. — Edokter • Talk • 11:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.The Tramp 11:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tramp (talk • contribs)

top/bottom links on ANI

I left a note and screenshot at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard about the test code. It isn't a bad idea if it can be made to work properly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support and your kind note on my talk page. I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who LoS

Should I FLC it soon or not? Will ^(talk) 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What's FLC? — Edokter • Talk • 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List Candidate. Will ^(talk) 12:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah... If you think it will pass, go ahead. I think you'll get better input from the LoS or the project talk page though. I still have to go through all episodes to fix the Series links and images (but that's a different matter). — Edokter • Talk • 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I've replied on my talk page to keep the thread in one place. Neil ☎ 12:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Music in "Doctor Who" (Army of Ghosts)

I hope this is the correct place to address this, because I don't want to get caught up in an "editwar" (whatever that is -- I don't use Wikipedia a lot.) However, you've deleted my comment about the use of the theme music from "Torchwood" in the Doctor Who episode "Army of Ghosts". Perhaps you're thinking of a different scene than what I described, but the music shortly after the Doctor enters the Torchwood institute is indeed, very quietly, the theme from the series "Torchwood", which had not yet begun broadcasting. It is not music that was used in any earlier series of Doctor Who, at least according to Torchwood fan sites such as this: http://torchwoodtv.blogspot.com/2006/10/theme-tune.html

(page down a little bit to see what I'm referring to.)

Further, at http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?showtopic=41209

the second post notes that: "The trailer also suggests we have heard the Torchwood theme music before. It is based on some incidental music from the Doctor Who Series 2 episode 'Army of Ghosts', in particular"

(And by the way, here's the theme I'm referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaVjkP2QfXE)

Of course, the regular Doctor Who music has been used in many episodes, but at this moment, there is a subtle use of what would later become the theme for "Torchwood." It had not been created for any other episode of Doctor Who. I will re-add my comment that you deleted unless I receive a good reason why not.--Drbauman (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what I meant; the music would end up becoming the theme for Torchwood. (It was't in series 1, my mistake.) However, Wikipedia isn't the place to put in every little connection; that is much better suited on sites like the Torchwood Wikia. Wikipedia however is an encyclodepia and is governed by policies like the notability policy. The continuity section is ment to contain connections for events between series and episodes storywise. Things like props (posters and such) and music are not connected to the story, that is why they should not be in the article. I hope that clears things up a bit. And please do read the policy on edit wars. — Edokter • Talk • 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I don't necessarily disagree with this, but how is a musical theme any less of an important reference than a logo (which I also think is an interesting thing to make note of)? And, frankly, I don't see much useful information on the Torchwood wiki site (if I'm looking at the right one) -- I think that Wikipedia is a much more commonly-used website and would be the first place to make comparative contributions for the benefit of others. We aren't writing the Encyclopaedia Brittanica here. --Drbauman (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia none the less. The logo is part of the story (but not particularely noteworthy in my opinion), the music isn't. It's just trivia, which is dicouraged. — Edokter • Talk • 11:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

LoS

Dammit, why did I have to nominate it on the day Auntie announces Billie's coming back? Can you keep a watch on the page anyway? Slight chance for misrepresentation of sources or duplication of information as everyone's rushing to put it on. Will ^(talk) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah... there is never a good time. I'll keep an eye on it. On another not... W00T! BILLIE! — Edokter • Talk • 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's reducing the impact of my favourite scene. You know, I think there's more hidden comments than text in the future part now... Will ^(talk) 21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to split the series 4 details off to another (temporary) article. Would that scene be the goodbye scene? Reunion scenes can be good... I really liked School Reunion for that. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

List of upcoming Doctor Who episodes? Will ^(talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, scary about my response time, and yes, the goodbye scene. The reason I love the goodbye scene is that the Doctor wasn't able to say "I love you", and if he was able, it ruins it. Will ^(talk) 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but it wouldn't be a list, would it? — Edokter • Talk • 22:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

True... Will ^(talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kitchen Nightmares

71.93.222.223 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC) You keep deleting the Criticism section of Kitchen Nightmares; can we discuss this? Your deletions are incorrect I believe and maybe I can answer some questions so you understand where I'm coming from and so you feel comfortable with the section.

I'd like to consider either a Truce on the Criticism section so that I or others may add to it.

Otherwise, I'd like to ask that you refer this matter to another admin or editor who might be able to resolve this. I feel as though you are using the warning to me too quickly and deleting the section as I'm editing it to bring it more clearly in compliance with Wikipedia standards.

Additionally, your claims about COI or spamming are false, as a check of history about who added that section would show you.

I feel like you need to allow cooler heads to prevail on this, as per Wikipedia's suggestion for conflict resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, such as reliable sources, original research, neutral point of view, soapboxing, conflict of interest and external links. As it stands, you broke all of the above. Wikipedia is not here to publish opinions, especially not of those linking to a website published by the contributor. The lawsuit is already covered in the article. I have no problem with a Criticism section, if that criticism is published by multiple, secondary sources, preferably from mainstream media. A single blogpost simply does not fit that criteria. The fact that you point to your own website only hurts credibility of Wikipedia. Those contribution are 99% likely to be deleted, and you risk getting blocked if you keep adding links to your own website.

This is not my opinion; it is policy, which I have no choice but to uphold. Many first time editors make mistakes. That in itself is not a problem. It will become a problem if they keep making the same mistake over and over again. So please, read the policies so you won't make this mistake in the future. — Edokter • Talk • 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You assume that I am a first time editor or that I am unfamiliar with policy. These are both incorrect. You say I point to my own website - no, check the history. I never once added a link to my own material - not one time.

I'm trying to post multiple sources, but you keep deleting the section.

I ask you politely, again - please refer this to another editor or admin who is willing to state specific objections, not just say 'read the rules'. You are not following Wikipedia's conflict resolution suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Two Guys from Andromeda

Hi, I wanted to ask you about the reasoning behind the deletion of this article as a needless disambiguation back in October. I gather at least one of the members' own articles was deleted? Regardless of the titular two's individual achievements, as a duo they're a fundamental name of the entire adventure game genre. Pick a retrogaming Wikipedia editor at random and ask him about them.

I'm verging on restoring it, but wanted to ask what's up first. --Kizor 16:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to dig deep in memory... I think the main reason was that the deleted article was already covered in Space Quest (both Mark Crowe and Scott Murphy redirects there as well). But I may have erred because it doesn't look like a disambiguation page, and I can't find any AfD's as well. If you like, I can restore the page, or copy it to your user space. — Edokter • Talk • 18:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd be so kind, please restore. I have the tools myself, but you doing it might look a bit less strange later. --Kizor 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done — Edokter • Talk • 19:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

another PA issue

Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but I have to ask for your assistance in removing this sentence (or its last part) from Moldopodo's page:

My page was vandalised by User:Moldorubo related to User:Dc76.

which is present there on top, in bold. I asked him several times, but he answers by claiming that some of my remarks related to his edits are personal attacks against him. Can we, please, distinguish between content disputes and personal attacks on one's page? Thank you for your assistance.:Dc76\^talk 14:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. — Edokter • Talk • 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :Dc76\^talk 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:DW Fear Her.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DW Fear Her.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fasach Nua (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned

George Costigan's CV:

DR WHO Series 4 Xmas Special (Max Capricorn) d: James Strong, BBC

Be well. 62.164.250.156 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! — Edokter • Talk • 23:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You have closed a discussion on this forum, whilst there was an ongoing debate, it is unclear if it was decided that this single edit was disruptive and whether the problem has been resolved, I would request that you state the outcome of the discussion. In closing this discussion it also appears to me that you have a conflict of interest and I would appreciate it you could also supply a reference to the policy of guidance you are working under, many thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to treat this all as water under the bridge Fasach Nua (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Let's just see how the deletion review comes out. — Edokter • Talk • 14:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Inkou.jpg on DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Inkou.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Note I'm not sure you are actually wanting to be the admin closing this, but I am just telling you encase you are interested. Jackaranga (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood

No a little birdie is not a reliable source, but the date given on digital spy for series 2 IS the planned date, the reason why it's been written as a little birdie is because it's subject to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.235.174 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And that is exactly why we cannot add it until we have a reliable source. — Edokter • Talk • 18:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they didn't mean a little birdie literally, they only said that because it is subject change, but at the Torchwood series 2 premier a little while ago they did say that it would air on the 16th, thus it is a reliable source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.235.174 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless we have a source that is verifyable, we cannot put it in. Let's just wait until the BBC publicly annoucnes the premiere. — Edokter • Talk • 23:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We can put "Week beginning 11th January", though. That is verifiable (BBC press release). Will ^(talk) 00:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Heroes Fight or Flight.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Heroes Fight or Flight.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fear Her, and how to deal with screenshots.

Hey. I've just cut the plot summary there down to 370 words (which was lower than I thought). Now, to be honest, I don't like the screenshot. Is it possible for a better screenshot to be uploaded (say, for example, the Isolus or the large-scale representation of the people disappearing as Chloe draws)? Will ^(talk) 00:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can produce any frame from the episode. But I'm getting a bit carried away at the IfD at the moment. I just can't underand why Fasach Nua keeps targeting this article/image. He has made it a personal quest to have it removed on bogus grounds, and now I pledged that it either stays, or all fair-use images are removed from Wikipedia. What have I gotten myself into? — Edokter • Talk • 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, there are worse offending pages, e.g. before cleanup, Crossroads (Battlestar Galactica) (two is really the upper limit - Starbuck's "resurrection" and Earth are damn-well significant) and Pilot (House). Will ^(talk) 00:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Giving Notice

If you believe that an editor has broken the 3RR (or otherwise violated Wikipedia rules), then you need to place a notice on that editor's Talk page. This will help caution otherwise good editors, and will help admins identify problematic editors. —75.28.8.132 (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

False and hurtful allegations

Please stop and think before criticising other user's contributions. I am doing this because at the moment the way the date formats work in Wikipedia is U.S. centric, in breach of the long standing policy that all variants of English have equality in Wikipedia. The redirects will allow people to use British English dates in auto-generated footnotes without creating red links. If you check you will note that such red links exist for most days in 2007, and for some dates in other years. They will proliferate in the future. I have asked the user who has made a false and hurtful attack on me for this constructive contribution to Wikipedia to make an unreserved apology to me. LukeHoC (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are completely pointless; Mediawiki's automatic date formatting already takes care of what you are trying to accomplish... ie, dates formatted like [[2006-09-25]] (citing format) result in 2006-09-25, depending on how you set your dating preference in Special:Preferences. Notice the year is linked seperately, as it should. You redirects do not accomplish anything, except loose the link to the year. — Edokter • Talk • 18:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to continue deleting these, or should I just start tagging them all? - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep deleting them (intermittently). No need to tag them, but thanks. — Edokter • Talk • 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned

Please resist the urge to throw around accusations in edit summaries .

I have explained my reasons here . I believe you had actually raised a valid point as to whether he was part of the cast. However I am not going to get into an edit point about this but urge you to consider your own valid point as to whether he is actually part of the cast.Garda40 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've missed that. However, it seemed a bit a pointy removing the note alltogether. I think it deseves mention; he will appear, but probably won't get credited. Anyway, sorry for the edit summary. — Edokter • Talk • 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Torchwood minor characters

Hi Doc. Just seen your revert. Quite right, but teasers for the new season have been popping up on the BBC Press Office site, so people think it's fair game to add them in. OK, unreferenced, but we should expect an increased interest. I usually revert per WP:CRYSTAL if I see them. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Scottevans05 is a case apart; he keeps adding unsourced info all the time and there's no point in explaning it to him, so I just hit rollback. Otherwise, I use edit summaries. — Edokter • Talk • 21:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Torchwood

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Torchwood. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 17:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Unwritten rule

There is one, isn't there? If there wasn't, I probably escaped dozens of blocks this year reverting unsourced crap. Will ^(talk) 18:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If there was an unwritten rule, I should be written down. WP:3RR#Exceptions does mention unsourced material, so I think we're covered. Just wondering if I now should fully protect the article; semi-protecting it is as far as I'm going to go. — Edokter • Talk • 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been fulled. Will ^(talk) 18:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin tools

Hi - while I realise it was probably done with the best of intentions, using your admin tools to gain an advantage in an edit-war that you were personally involved in is never A Good Idea. It'd be best to go to RFPP in such a case. Happy Holidays, BLACKKITE 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I was walking the line here, but technically, it wasn't a content dispute, but upholding policy. Anyway, another admin fully protected the article now. Merry Christmas! — Edokter • Talk • 18:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Having checked the reasoning seems sensible. Even so, you are a content editor on that page, and you did protect the page to prevent edits by a user you were in disagreement with. The fact you may have been right in your view, or they are an IP user, is not very relevant. The norms for semi-protection are fairly clear: it is not appropriate to use it in a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users unless the matter is actual vandalism, which this wasn't. More generally, using it in a matter you're already a disputant in, can call both the action and yourself into question.

Please, next time do ask another admin to apply protection if you feel there is repeated addition of unverified content against consensus. Black Kite is right. You'll head for problems at some point, if you do that. Your greatest asset as an admin is visible neutrality and judgement, and borderline use might be seen as a concern. There were admins who would have gladly checked and done this for you :) Happy Christmas though! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this debate, but I gotta say, reverting something multiple times, being warned for breaking the 3 edit rule and then reverting AGAIN and protecting a page that has not been vandalised so your edit stays permanently is about as egrecious an abuse of admin powers I have ever seen. The information added to the page was cited -- your opinion as to the validity of those sources (press & cast VS BBC press release) is a matter of differing opinions (with no consensus reached -- there were many editors on both sides). 90.204.48.14 (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Edokter that the press release is authoritative (the BBC knows its own business) but I think he was being a bit naughty by edit warring (well over three reverts) and using semiprotection to win a dispute. The thing to remember here is that you are not alone. Use dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong in warring and semi-protecting the article, even though the added information was in no way verifyable. I should have someone else help me. To 90.204.48.14: None of the sources you cited stated 16 January, and adding wrong or mis-accredited information often is regarded as vandalism. Let's both regard this as a learning experience and both not make the same mistake twice. — Edokter • Talk • 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am 90.204.48.14. I did not notice I'd been logged out before. FYI, I have not edited the Torchwood page since the books were released months ago. I read the premiere date in a magazine, visited the Wiki page to see if it had been added yet, and found the page protected and a huge fight going on. As a long-standing editor, not to mention a Torchwood fan (and probably a nosy parker) I felt moved to comment. Forgive me if that was unduly out of line, but I would hope a fellow editor would do the same for me if I got too upset to see clearly. Queer Scout (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, there is a report regarding your actions at WP:AN3. As the page has already been full-protected and you cannot really self-revert, I don't think there's any need for action - it would be solely punitive at this point. Also you seem to have acknowledged your mistake in edit-warring and semiprotecting the page. But please mind 3RR and go to WP:RFPP in the future, and we'll leave it there. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome, having a bit of trouble with a user already though.-ClaxsonUnit (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that. Please understand that Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding sourcing information; that is, any information, even episode titles, must be verifyable. Even if you work on Doctor Who, if there is no way to verify the information, we still cannot add it. If you do have a reliable and verifyable source, post it on the article's talk page. Other editors can add the citations to the information. — Edokter • Talk • 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

PngFix and alt

Could you please revert this edit to the PngFix script? TeX does not intend that the alt parameter is used as a tooltip. The title parameter is for tooltips, the alt parameter is only for alternate text if the image fails to display. Internet Explorer incorrectly displays the alt text as the tooltip if there is no title text. The MediaWiki software does not rely on this quirk; it always uses the title attribute for compatibility with other browsers. The change you made not only improperly exposed the alt parameter, it significantly reduced the performance of the PngFix script. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:TEX: TeX does intend to show a tooltip, showing the source of the formula. It even explicitly states it uses the alt attribute to do so, and my IEdev toolbar confirms this. In fact, not a single image on Wikipedia uses the image's tille attribute to show tooltips; it uses the title in the enclosing href to do so (which happen to correspond with the image's alt tag). Notice that alt is only used when there is no title. Further more, using the ?: operater does not slow the script in any way; it is a boolean evaluation. — Edokter • Talk • 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:TEX reads:

The alt attribute of the PNG images (the text that is displayed if your browser can't display images; Internet Explorer shows it up in the hover box) is the wikitext that produced them, excluding the <math> and </math>.

It says that Internet Explorer will make it show up as a tooltip. It does not say that this is what was intended. If it were intended, then the developers would have used the title attribute so that the tooltip would show up on all browsers.

Your code introduces a boolean evaluation and two more DOM lookups (img.title and img.alt) for nearly every image on the page. That is quite significant. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

img.() is cached, so there is no DOM lookup. I was trying to restore IE's standard behaviour, that does show the tooltip, but does not with the script enabled. That boolean evaluation is also part of the original PngFix script. Another solution would be to filter out TeX images, but that would involve testing each image for a .tex class... which would slow down the script. — Edokter • Talk • 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Or we could simply enter outerSpan.title = img.alt and be done with it. Like I said; img.title is always empty anyway. — Edokter • Talk • 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Internet Explorer doesn't cache img.(), though I'm sure other browsers do. Otherwise, it wouldn't improve performance to explicitly cache things like document.createElement.

Internet Explorer's "standard behaviour" in this case is actually a quirk or a bug in Internet Explorer. Previously, the PngFix script had the nice side effect of automatically eliminating this quirk and displaying TeX images as the TeX developers intended: without a tooltip. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bug or not, the script wasn't intended to "fix" IE's (mis)behavioural issues. And since MediaWiki puts the title in an image's alt tag (while leaving the image's title empty), outerSpan.title = img.alt would seem the most logical step. — Edokter • Talk • 19:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what the script was designed to do: fix improper IE behavior regarding alpha channel transparency. A side effect of this was that the script also fixed IE's improper handling of the alt parameter. The script previously brought IE6 in line with Firefox, Opera, and Safari. Now you're arguing that we should re-introduce IE's buggy behavior at the cost of performance. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Alpha transparency isn't a bug; IE just lacks support for it. And no, the script should not try to fix any other standard behaviour of IE. I am saying we should restore that standard behaviour. I even believe that is why MediaWiki copies the tilte to the alt tag. — Edokter • Talk • 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing: it's not standard behavior, it's a quirk. The TeX developers did not intend for the alt text to be displayed as a tooltip. If they did, they would have put it in the title parameter so that it would show up in all browsers. Internet Explorer improperly ignores this and exposes the alt parameter.

MediaWiki does automatically copy the title to the alt parameter, but it does not copy the alt parameter to the title parameter as you want to change the script to do. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) It is standard behaviour for Internet Explorer, and while it may be a quirk, it should not be "fixed", nor "brought in line with other browsers". If people want "standard" behaviour, they can use Firefox or any other browser. But we IE users simply want our "standard" tooltips back; as it is the standard behaviour if MediaWiki in IE. — Edokter • Talk • 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And can I just say that this whole argument is a complete waste of time over absolutely nothing? — Edokter • Talk • 19:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's absolutely nothing, then go revert your edit and you can put your modified PngFix script in your user space. There are two problems here: one that you re-introduced quirky behavior in IE, and two that this caused a significant drop in performance. Internet Explorer wasn't even supposed to display the TeX markup in the tooltip in the first place. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no 'significant' difference in performance. And I'm not going to revert it for the sake of a single user who doesn't even use Internet Explorer. State your case at the common.js talkpage if you must... That 'quirky' behaviour is normal and expected from IE and does not need "fixing", therefor there is nothing that warrants any changes causing IE to behave otherwise. — Edokter • Talk • 21:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned

Do you have access to the Confidential episode for "Voyage"? All the article needs for GA is a production section and some citations for the CR section - I can do the latter, but I accidentally deleted my copy of Confidential the other day. If not, I can wait a week for it to re-air. Will ^(talk) 20:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I just finished watching it. What would you like to put in? — Edokter • Talk • 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you, as you have the copy. Do something like what's done on Doomsday (Doctor Who) (like background, e.g. Kylie, filming dates and locations, creation of the monsters), so people won't complain about inconsistency :) Will ^(talk) 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you're wrong. It's 71:50 long :P. Will ^(talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dammit... and I was counting so concentrated :) — Edokter • Talk • 13:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)