User talk:Jasononthehouse/Archive 1

'''Welcome to the Jasononthehouse Thanks for your edits! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool! We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first. British English, please We generally use British English round these parts, so if you're American, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card. Spoilers aren't cool We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details. Other useful stuff Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:
 * the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
 * our Manual of Style
 * our image use policy
 * our user page policy
 * a list of people whose job it is to help you

If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! —  you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this: ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on my talk page. -- CzechOut (Talk) 06:13, 2011 October 6

Recent pictures
Hey Jason :) Welcome on board and thanks for your recent pictures at The Doctor's Wife.  Just out of curiosity, what did you mean in your revision notes when you repeatedly said "not spoilers"?  According to our Spoiler policy, the only kind of spoilers we recognise are those about stories which haven't yet aired.  It's not possible to spoil The Doctor's Wife, an episode aired months ago.  07:18: Sun 09 Oct 2011

Empty Child pic
The only thing that concerns me is that it derives from another site. In general, we prefer our editors to make their own screencaps, rather than taking them from other people's sites, just so that the posting editor can vouch that the screenshot is actually a screenshot.

I didn't really look at the file extension of that pic, but remember that all screenshots must be .jpg format. (You will find exceptions, but we're generally trying to delete these.)

The actual subject of the photo — Rose's first scene with Jack — is certainly appropriate for that episode's page, though. I'd just recommend that you screencap that scene yourself, making sure you follow image use policy. 01:23: Fri 14 Oct 2011

Requests
The category you're looking for is category:Earth nations.

And Mark should indeed be made. Why don't you consider making it? I've just moved the current thing at "Mark" out of the way so that you can make it. Just cut and paste from disambiguation/preload, and begin filling it out. Peter is the usual example we give of a full and proper disambig page. One other tip — use Special:Search to look for "Mark". It'll give a much fuller range of responses. If you use the regular search bar, it'll look for a page named "Mark", which isn't what we want. Good luck! 19:03: Thu 27 Oct 2011

Minor format issues
Please click here to examine some formatting issues in your edit at Mark Chambers. Your version is at left; mine at right. Note that:


 * the disambig note in your revision incorrectly abuts the close bracket ]] of the picture placement. This will always produce undesired results.  Any time you use a : ; # or *, it must follow a carriage return. That is, it must be the first thing on a line.  Otherwise, the software doesn't interpret it properly.
 * disambig notes are typically entirely italicized, so there should just be two single-quotes and the beginning and two at the end.
 * stub categories should never be added directly to a page. We want users to be able to see that the page is a stub.  Thus we add one of our stub templates, which automatically adds the appropriate stub category.

Thanks for your edits! 23:58: Thu 27 Oct 2011

Italy and Murray and Tigers, Oh My!
Let me make it clear that Doug86 has broadly acted quite properly here, and that I strongly disapprove of your temper tantrum on his talk page. It's important to keep a level head when dealing with users who, on the surface of things, have "wronged" you.

Murray stuff
I see that Doug has already responded on the topic of the Murray page. He was just enforcing a standard practise with wikis. If you had performed your action on Wikipedia, Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha, or any other wiki that gives a damn about preserving its page history, the exact same thing would have happened.

See, each page consists of several parts, which should always remain indivisible. There's the content page itself — the one you see when you type "Murray" into the search bar and press. Then, behind that, there's the History page and the Talk page (talk:Murray). These must always stay with the main page. I encourage you to read and understand help:moving pages What you did was to divorce the History page from the main article page. That is to say, you put the History of the disambiguation page right into the middle of the History of the page about the guy from Delta.

In order to prevent that, what you needed to do was to have moved the original page at 'Murray' to 'Murray (Delta and the Bannermen). (Don't do this now; Doug86 has already corrected your mistake.) You should also read help:page history When you move, rather than cut and paste, you move the History to the new page, and thus preserve it alongside the proper content. When you cut from Murray and paste it into the newly-created Murray (Delta and the Bannermen), you leave the history for Murray (Delta and the Bannermen) on the page called Murray.

It should be pointed out that your work has not been destroyed. It's just a part of the page history. All you have to do is to go to the Murray (Delta and the Bannermen) page history, find the revision with your name on it, and cut and paste that over to Murray. Nothing's been lost.

Category stuff
You are way overcategorising. Let's just look at what you attempted at Italy. You added Earth nations, European nations and Europe. Way too much. Doug was right to trim that. You have to take notice of a thing called the category tree before you start thinking that things are mis-categorised around here. Let's look at the category tree for category:Earth nations: The exception to this sort of linear category structure has to do with categories currently involved in the Game of Rassilon. FOr instance, if we were to hand out points for editing pages about Earth nations, we'd have to temporarily put all the Earth nations into the same category. Categories which have been temporarily expanded should bear a game note, however. As you can see, page Italy is in category:Italy, which is underneath category:European nations, which is itself underneath category:Earth nations. So Italy was already in the categories you tried to add to it. You can get to the page Italy by following the category structure. This is preferable to putting all applicable categories onto a single page.

Your placement of Italy in category:Earth nations and category:European nations and category:Europe disturbed the order that we already had in place. Moreover, it created unnecessary recursion in the category tree. If I were running a procedure with the bot, I would've encountered Italy over and over again, when I only needed to touch it once.

The moral of the story is: look at the category structure before you start mass-adding categories. Remember, we've been around since 2004. You should assume that we probably do have some sort of logical category structure in place. More to the point, we've probably thought of what to do about something as commonplace as the country of Italy.

Jason
What happened on the Jason page is, I can understand, frustrating, but I can quite understand where Doug86 was coming from. He left behind an edit summary explaining his actions. He said you added no content, and that's true. All you added was the skeletal structure. Your edit appeared to take the page from a position of being compact and readable, to being filled with subheaders that gave no additional information. He couldn't have reasonably known you were then going to fill that with information.

To avoid this sort of problem in the future, you have a lot of options.
 * 1) Put inuse at the top of the article. This will alert other users to the fact that you are currently editing the article.
 * 2) If you were close to filling in those subheads, just go ahead and press "publish". The worst that would've happened would have been an edit conflict, which you resolve (in this case) by cutting your revision from edit box on the bottom of the page, and pasting it into the top edit box.  (Note that in most edit conflicts you wouldn't do this.  You'd generally try to integrate your revisions into those of the other editor.  But this is a special case, where your edit would have been wholly superior.)
 * 3) Simply undo Doug's edit, put up the inuse tag, leave an edit summary explaining that you're actively editing the article, and keep going.
 * 4) Use a word processor to create the page offline. Paste your finished version of the page into wiki and press "publish". If you don't have a word processor (which, frankly, is unlikely — every OS comes with some sort of basic text editor), or you just want to edit in the wiki environment, create a sandbox on your user page (User:Jasononthehouse/Sandbox) and complete the article there.

The one thing you definitely should not do is to go onto user:Doug86's page and pitch a hissy-fit about how mean he's being. Just like with the Murray case, you've lost nothing, and it's super-easy to get back on the horse and keep going.

Summing up
Just to re-iterate, Doug's done what admin are supposed to do. He's cleaned up the wiki by acting in defence of standard categorisation and archiving practises. He hasn't "targeted" you, so he can't possibly be "out to get you". It'd be brilliant if you could now apologise to him for your overreaction. (Don't worry; you'll be in good company. I've apologised to him, too.)

15:50: Fri 28 Oct 2011 17:42: Tue 20 Dec 2011