User talk:Skittles the hog

Hollow Men
Yeah. I hate ones like this, because some editor or other is always unhappy by the decision. Still, we already have a ton of pages in category:Songs from the real world where the name is never explicitly stated on screen, but the song is obvious from what our ears tell us. Auditory information is canonical, just as visual info is, though it can be overruled by dialogue. If there's a sign that says "Welcome to Honolulu" then we don't need dialogue to tell is we're in Honolulu. Likewise, if "Paperback Writer" is playing, we don't need Jamie to say, "Hey, it's the Beatles singing "Paperback Writer", Doctor." If we have a helicopter shot of iconic Paris, it's Paris — unless the dialogue calls it, for instance, New Paris.

Thus, the Doctor quoting familiar poetry, with the author's name being spoken in dialogue, is more the enough, I'd say to unambiguously name it "The Hollow Man" in the DWU.

So, yeah, the current The Hollow Men needs to go to The Hollow Men (novel), and the Elliot work gets the un-disambiguated name.

Chameleon
Heya :) Just noticed this in passing.  If two things from the DWU have the same name, then neither gets to go naked, as it were.  Both things have to have disambiguation.  So the sentient species, Chameleon, needs to move to Chameleon (humanoid), now that we've got Chameleon (reptile).  Chameleon would then become a disambig, since there's Chameleon circuit, giving us the requisite minimum number of items for a disambig page.
 * Cameo in The Ark maybe. I'd be willing to wager at least a few dollars that a chameleon pops up in a book somewhere, and we just haven't run across it yet.

"By media" companion cats
Yeah, I debated that one yesterday myself and I did see the utility of such cats. People will find those categories useful. I debated moving the cats to the real world super cat, but whether it's there or under the in-universe supercat, it's still mixing the two in a way that should normally be forbidden. At the end of the day, I just decided that it wasn't causing actual category recursion. So I left it alone until such time as I or others can give it a proper think.

[My current obsession with cats has everything to do with recursion. I'm not methodically going through every cat and weeding them out on the basis of adherence to the "four cat" rule seen at Floor 500.]

Now that you've gotten me thinking about it again, though, all that info could be conveyed through a single page, or charts on companion. As long as as the companions are broken down somewhere by media, then we've given people something they can use. Yeah, sorry for the stream of consciousness writing here, but those cats could go in favor of adding the info in a tabular way to companion, though obviously to the BTS section.

Bold Clone block
Could you explain why you blocked Bold Clone please? I've looked through the history of The Doctor's TARDIS and can't see what he did wrong. Did he do something at another page that, when added to his changes at the TARDIS, created a broader offense? And, are you sure it was for a reason covered by our blocking policy? What I see is that he took some pictures down, and he left a rationale in the revision note. What's wrong with that to cause you to block him without warning him on his talk page?
 * Not it's not the hastiness that bugs me. It's the fact that what he did isn't listed as an offense in tardis:blocking policy or tardis:vandalism policy.  The closest thing is the line about "bad faith edits" or "edit wars", but it's hard to see bad faith when he left a revision note that said there were too many pics.  And, if it's edit wars, you're kinda stuck right there with him.  But if it is edit wars, you know the policy seems to suggest a lower sorta block.   Yes, you can do more than 2 hours, but 24 for what were probably good faith edits seems harsh.


 * Look, of course I disagree with him, and I honestly do thank you for defending my work.

But I just don't see how you can block someone for 24 hours for what he's done so far at that article. If the block is really about only his editing at that page, I'd ask that you lift it. Blocking him from editing his own talk page is especially harsh in this circumstance.


 * Hmmm. Sorry to keep hammering this, but it's important that we admin don't give the wiki a reputation for "blocking at will".  What specific rule of the blocking policy are you alleging he crossed?


 * I am going to now slightly revert your block to allow him to post to his talk page. There really is no cause to completely ban him from speaking on the wiki.


 * Cool, I'm glad you see my questioning as an attempt to rectify actions against rules, rather than a personal attack on you. Because, again, I am incredibly appreciative that you'd defend my work here.  But I also don't want to lose editors because of unfair administrative practice.  Now I know what you may be thinking.  BC is a sometimes difficult editor and maybe it'd be okay to lose him.  But I think we're defined by how we treat the editors with whom we have conflict more than by those who go along with everything we say.  So it's important that we use our powers in accordance with the rules laid down, or that we talk about changing the rules.  In this particular case, BC can only be judged according ot the rules as they currently stand.  And I'm not seeing "repeated removal of content" anywhere in the rules.  The closest is tardis:editing policy, which prevents more than 4 reversions in 36 hours, which he didn't do.  So, I think you do have to let him off.  Note, too, that tardis:editing policy requires you, as much as him, to discuss things.  That is, you think he reverted you, but you were reverting him too.  Determinative in this situation is this quote from the editing policy:
 * In all situations discussion should be the norm, not an edit war or admin action (in the form of protection or blocking).

Changes to blocking policy
Moving away a bit from the the above case, I'm a little confused as to the specifics of your proposed change, cause I don't think you quite finished your second sentence. Are you suggesting that people should discuss any changes before making them to an article? If so, I don't think that would work, as it's pretty much against the spirit of a wiki. The rule against 4 reversions in 36 hours prevents too much abuse from happening. And if you're suggesting that articles not be changed whilst a discussion is underway, you'd have quite a problem administering that. Most people don't check the talk page before editing, so you'd end up with several cases of people making changes to the article, unawares of the ongoing discussion. And, of course, some people would claim to be unawares, when they really were.

Could you amplify your point a little bit? I'm not sure I'm understanding you fully.
 * I don't at all think you could have a rule which suggested that the current form of an article is the preferred form. That's very much against the spirit of wiki editing. But then so does "gainsaying" an article — that is, just reverting the previous person's edits repeatedly. I think the thing is that if you had started a discussion about these changes, and BC either completely ignored that discussion, or gave them nominal lip service whilst nevertheless continuing to revert things, your actions would've been wholly within the rules as they currently stand. Likewise, he doesn't appear to have reached out to you and started a discussion when you started to revert his edits. So, really, you both failed to take the steps you needed to, according to current policies.


 * Getting back to policy changes, I don't think you could "freeze" an article at the point of controversy but through full protection, which is an awfully big gun to pull out on most occasions. And I wouldn't want to see a rule that compelled admins to fully protect an article just because of a li'l edit war. Though I intellectually understood why it was necessary, the Howling Halls protection rubbed me the wrong way. I kinda didn't protest only because it was an insignificant article. If something as important as the Doctor's TARDIS were ever fully protected, I'd go to the wall to take off that protection. So, no, I don't think it's viable to actually take some action that would freeze an article until discussion happens.


 * Look how long the Howling Halls thing went on. Could we reasonably say to the vast majority of editors who never participate in any discussions, "Look, you can't touch this article for two months?" No, they'd think we were batty and leave.


 * I think you have two courses of action available to you at this point. You could check out wikipedia:wikipedia:3RR and other wikipedia policies around blocking to see if you find any language which addresses the problem you were having this time round. Or you could maybe adjust your approach to the rules as they are. When you get into "edit war-like" scenarios, take a step back. Get another admin to come in and adjudicate the situation, so that you're not in danger of being accused of admin abuse. Start discussion with the user in question. If that goes nowhere, take it to the talk page or the forum. When I nearly got into an edit war with BC over the lead to The Leisure Hive, I just walked away from the article entirely and started a forum post on the matter. Taking the time to write out a forum post on the issue reduced my blood pressure immediately.


 * And here's a final thought. I personally think an admin should avoid blocking someone with whom he or she is having an active editing dispute. It's just unseemly. Sure, you may be forced to if a person makes a crystal clear violation of the rules —like, profanity or spam or violations of the video policy or something. But if you think about it, I think you'll agree that you weren't anywhere close to that this time. That's why I say you need to either take on board the policy as it is, or find some better language that fits what you think was a problem this time round.

I would like to know why you deleted the picture in the Vashta Narada talk page. I know that it has nothing to do with anything in the doctor who universe, I put in the talk page I was not going to put the actual picture in the article itself. Thank you Son of Icthar 17:02, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't. I said that it would not be put into the page itself! Son of Icthar 17:08, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Planet of Evil (planetoid)
Obviously this name violates tardis:disambiguation policy and has to go. So we have several options:


 * Stick with "Planet of Evil", which is barely used in the serial, and won't be the thing most people will search for.  This will obligate us to change the current Planet of Evil to Planet of Evil (TV story), and make changes throughout the wiki.
 * Go with third planet, which is by far the most common name for the object in the story. Have a redirect at planet of evil, which can then be put in inverted commas in the lead, as in:  The third planet, sometimes called the "planet of evil" . ..
 * Go with unnamed planet (The Armageddon Factor), which is accurate and follows convention on a number of pages, but doesn't have the advantage of being something most people will search for. I suppose we could do redirects, however, which will improve searchability.

Which do you fancy? 23:16:03 Fri 25 Feb 2011

Zap gun
Am I readin' this article rightly? You have a copy of the script of Delta and the Bannermen? How? Or, perhaps more tellingly, why? 18:57:40 Sat 26 Feb 2011
 * Heh, to me, the Seventh Doctor is good for precisely one thing: providing a canonical link between Six and Eight. That said, Delta is one of those "so bad it's good" kinda stories. Which is an achievement for that era of the programme, since so much of it is simply bad.  I love Ray though.  I so wish she'd been the new companion instead of Ace, whom I despise with a white hot passion.   19:21:03 Sat 26 Feb 2011

I would just like to say something
I have given it some thought I would like to apologise. I have thought about it and have decided you are right. I will delete all evidence of it from the talk page and with your permission also delete your posts as well. I hope that we can put this behind us and that we can work in harmony. Thank you. Son of Icthar 12:23, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask though why not on the Vashta Narada talk page itself. Apart from that I'm gald that we have made peace. Also how do you change your avatar? Son of Icthar 12:28, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand. Thank you again. User:Son of Icthar 12:33, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

JAL
That sounds much better to me. It seems quite strange though that I'm the only contributer (registered at least) that edits JAL and I haven't even listened to them yet :P.

, so a decision can be reached! Mini-mitch\talk 17:09, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
Was that one his talk page on with my edit to the Sonic lipstick - List of Appearances page. If it was the second one, my computer brought up the mistake just as I clicked publish (as I though the User had spelt it right, but just did not link.) I felt like a right twit when I saw the red link, and felt like commenting on his page saying 'don't listening to me, I'm a twit!'. Mini-mitch\talk 17:13, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Drop-down
I added Amy Pond to the list, as she is considered the main companion, and most currently companion. It should be divided up into Television -> Doctor Who, SJA, Torchwood, K9 and Comics -> main comics and Audio -> main audio. Unless we add a current section? I think the current companion should be in it, but like you said with SJA, comics etc. Mini-mitch\talk 16:56, March 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try and see what the sections look like, but I need the current companions for the audio series and novels (since I don't follow them). Do you know them? Cheers. Mini-mitch\talk 17:20, March 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I gave up on the sections, and just added a link to the category companions. Mini-mitch\talk 18:02, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Extra space in imdb name
Don't have a solution, but I am putting the issue up on my to-do list. See User blog:CzechOut/Open issue: extraneous space in external links templates 22:53:42 Thu 03 Mar 2011
 * I see you didn't read the blog entry. It does apply to all external links.  22:06:03 Wed 09 Mar 2011
 * This issue is now closed. Details at blog entry linked above.  Thanks for bringing it up so that it could be solved :)  01:27:26 Thu 10 Mar 2011

Slade
Ran a search on my ebook of it and this came up:

"The chords of Slade's Merry Xmas Everybody rebounded around the bar at a volume intended to be audible over a pubful of drunken chatter."

I was a tad dubious about it too, I'm sure the song pops up in the Runaway Bride too, give me a mo and I will take a look. --Revan\Talk 18:17, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Kettlewell
I'm reading it right now and he is featured as a character, though very briefly. GusF-- Talk 19:53, March 10, 2011 (UTC).

You're more than welcome. GusF-- Talk 19:56, March 10, 2011 (UTC).

20:00:51 Fri 11 Mar 2011

Hey
What's the meaning of deleting all my work, I spent a while on that, for one thing not all of it is from the doctor, and for another, almost all the information on that page is from the doctor, so why only delete my work, if your against information from only one source, then delete the whole page. General MGD 109

Not all of it does, addmitally a good portion does, but its from the doctor that we got the majority of are information on Time lords, and several parts are from other time lords, or things other time lords have also shown they are able to do.

I see your point, but you have to admit that several of the shows of hand-eye conordination that the doctor has shown are in affect super human, and many time lords have shown skill with guns, even thought most of them should never fired one before, for example Rommana, The master, Goth ect,

Well I don't have that, but you have to admit that there is evidence to surgest it, and it shown that time lords posses supior eye sight, reflexes and dexterity, so it isn't that imposible, after all how else do you explain a acedemy graduate of a race who's only soldiers arethe guards in the lower classes, as such would have had no acess to learning to fire a gun before in there life, being a crackshot on there first try?

Reply to NA
I actually see no point in doing this if the information is already been placed in the character's article. It's just duplicate information that is better of in the article page. We don't do it for television stories, so why for novels. It ultimately makes character articles a wee bit pointless IMO, as the information can just be put on story articles instead. I'm going to raise this in the forums. Mini-mitch\talk 17:05, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Mini-mitch\talk 17:25, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Mara.jpg
Hey, just wanted to let you know why I so quickly deleted file:Mr Mara.jpg. It's really close to file:MaraTrueForm.jpg. And though it faces a different direction and is bigger than MaraTrueForm, it's actually not as good a quality, I don't think, because it has extras in the background. MaraTrueForm is the snake and nothin' but the snake. 22:32:31 Tue 15 Mar 2011

Choose your own adventure
What you're asking are good questions, I recall there was a discussion (somewhere) about this, but the general outcome I seem to recall is that they fell into the same category as computer games, in that while they have multiple paths they've generally got only a few actual outcomes. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:47, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

--Tangerineduel / talk 14:37, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Heading collision
Can I please have a screenshot, and information about what browser you're using? 22:32:47 Wed 23 Mar 2011
 * Here's a screenshot of how things are looking on my screen, just so you can see the absolute current state of design and check it against your own view:

Note that "collision" may happen in Firefox (and other browsers) if you choose to zoom "text only". By the very name of the command, it should be obvious that "zoom text only" means that you're distorting the text versus the rest of the page. If you uncheck that selection, and then zoom the whole page in or out in proportion, you'll never get collision. At least not so far as I can detect. I spent a lot of time on the wikia header bar checking for just this problem, and as far as I can see it's a robust design. Neither I nor any programmer can code things to prevent a page from strange effects when the text and page sizes are deliberately changed by the user to be out of synch with one another. Go to any Wikia wiki page, try the trick of Firefox zooming with text only, and you'll be disappointed by the results. 22:55:45 Wed 23 Mar 2011
 * Judging from your screenshot, it looks like you have not recently refreshed your cache. I know I say this all the time, but please humour me and do it again, then send a new screenshot if you have a problem.  I know that the the upper wikia bar doesn't look like that anymore.  Also, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to show with the three headers from companion.  Regardless of font, there would always be three headers in a row there.   17:28:11 Thu 24 Mar 2011
 * No, thank you for alerting me to a problem that I wasn't seeing. I'm glad I was able to resolve it for you.  17:34:15 Thu 24 Mar 2011

Thanks for fixing up my stuff.
Thanks for helping with the articles I've added (Caskelliac and Thinwood) from The Ring of Steel. I'm trying to add the articles that aren't there as I read the novels and listen to the audio dramas, but I'm new to this; your edits help me realize more correctly how to cite everything. And sometimes my language was awkward, your edits are appreciated. Cosmic Hobo 17:34, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

15:40:45 Tue 29 Mar 2011

Categories
Hi ! yeah I know I'm crap at adding them .... usually get them wrong and /or they get changed so I stopped :( At some point I will devote some time to getting a handle on them - I promise! The Librarian 23:37, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hi Skittles. I've just got a very snappy question. How do you make infoboxes? Thanks, Ghastly9090 15:58, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Rassilon
Just to note Skittles your missing out the Don Warrington Rassilon on your meta-pic of the Rassilons. --Revan\Talk 10:36, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Tenth doctor enimies
Hi. I was just looking at the Recent Wiki Activity and saw that you had been adding the category Tenth Doctor Enemies. Shouldn't it be Enemies of the Tenth Doctor? What do you think? --Ghastly9090 12:33, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Season 6 (Doctor Who)
Hi, Please can you give me some pointers as to what I did wrong & why you have reverted my edits on Season 6? I did put a lot of thought & work into getting those right. Thanks in advance. StefanDurn 17:56, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I saw the full trailer, and on the tenth consecutive viewing of the all-too-brief half-second flash of what appeared to be the tenth Doctor's tardis (A set I knew to still be standing at DW-HQ from the scenes of Karen, Matt and Arthur eating their lunch in the old console room in the behind the scenes featurettes) I turned to Tardis.wiki for an explanation. Not finding one, I instantly thought of all those fraustrated fans like me who would want something - even if only a closer look at the still images...

Should I make a new heading for people to add/edit information found in the Trailer? I remember seeing something like that months back for season 5...

StefanDurn 18:12, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

real world on novel pages and other stuff
Sorry to have not answered your queries on my talk page, so let me catch up. First, thanks for catching that the bot failed at the novel category with its real world duties. It's now back on that job, and by the time you read this, will have likely finished. If you see any more areas that don't have a real world tag, please lemme know.

As for the disambiguation stuff (as with Planet of Evil (planetoid), I'm not sure you need to wait for "community consent", you just need to try your best to follow the already-existing Disambiguation policy and those parts of the manual of style that have do with naming things. If you hit specific pages that are puzzling, just ask me or tangerineduel or Azes13 or whomever you trust.  If worse comes to worse, start a discussion on particular puzzlers, as I did as Forum:Disambiguation case study: Wish You Were Here.  However, the vast majority of things are covered by current policy.   05:56:05 Tue 05 Apr 2011

Stubs
Hiya :) I'm sure this isn't something you regularly do, but I notice at skin suit that you added the category:stub rather than template:stub.  Please make a special effort to avoid this practice in future, as adding the category means — as I'm sure you already well know — that changes to the template aren't reflected on the page.  I only bring it up because skin suit was the only page out of the hundreds in the category that didn't move when I just changed the template to move the category from category:stub to the grammatically proper category:stubs.   19:59:34 Wed 06 Apr 2011

Stubs
Thanks for the hint, but unfortunately it did not work :(. Like I said to CzechOut, I'll wait a day and see what happens, then give him screenshots if nothing has changed. Mini-mitch\talk 20:38, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Videos
I've noticed that we can add videos using the tab next to Template so why don't we use this. I mean, we could put full episodes onto here for people to watch. Why aren't we using it? Sorry for putting you on the spot, you are the only brainy user on at the moment (no offence!). Ghastly9090 17:01, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

OK, mabye not full vids, but how about short 2-5 min long clips? Ghastly9090 17:05, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Blocked edits
Why did you revert my edits on the Cyberman (Pete's World) page? All I did was add the information about them being sent to the void and pointed out something obvious.

Actually I was referring to the squad of Cybermen which arrived to fight the Genises ark Daleks after they came out. If you count them, you will see that there are 32 Cybermen in that group, and just after the Doctor opens the void we get a close up on that group of Cybermen, which shows that only two of that 32 have been killed, despite battling millions of Daleks. Watch the episode and see for yourself.Dalekcaan14 12:01, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

I am going to re-add it now but I will fix the mistakes. Please do not revert it again.Dalekcaan14 12:21, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Warning
Just to be even-handed about this, you, too, are on the cusp of violating editing policy, so I'd ask you to stay away from Cyberman (Pete's World) for about 35 hours, please. And I'm about to unblock Dalekcaan because Tangerineduel changed the threshold from 3 to 4 reversions after he first wrote the policy, and I didn't notice. Dalekcaan only reverted 3 times so far, just like you, so he hasn't actually violated current policy. 13:12:43 Thu 14 Apr 2011


 * I'm sorry that you feel I "accused" you of misusing stubs. I don't understand how you would come to use such a harsh word for it though.  The message, even if erroneously directed, was very nicely worded, I thought.  I bent over backwards to avoid an accusatory tone.  It distresses me that I seem to have failed.


 * As for the warning above, again, I've been conciliatory. I've used the word "please",  I've "ask"ed you, not told you.  But, yes, I am serious.  We must be bound by the rules we seek to enforce.  Surely you see that an edit war can't happen with just one person involved. Dalekcaan wasn't just flagrantly adding bad information.  It's quite clear he believes what he's adding to the article.  He says he's counted the numbers of individuals in the frame.  So this isn't a case of you, as the countering editor, getting to repeatedly remove Dalekcaan's stuff because it's something included in tardis:Editing policy.  You'll note that "bad information" isn't in that list.  The closest thing is "obvious vandalism".   Yes, "vandalism", according to our vandalism policy, does include the inclusion of false information — but only deliberately false information. Dalekcaan's edits weren't that, though.  It's clear he totally believes in the edit he's trying to make.  Someone attempting to insert false information wouldn't leave the revision notes he did, nor would they have attempted to engage you in proper discussion on your talk page.  He believes this is true information, so by removing it, you were a party to an edit war.


 * I know it may not seem like it — the information he's trying to include is a little batty — but it's a good faith edit, nonetheless. We are all of us bound, therefore, to follow our editing policy and actually consider the truth of his edits in a discussion.  How — if my goal is fair judgement — can I warn him without warning you?  You've both made exactly the same number of good faith reversions to the article.  All I'm saying is that it's time for the matter to be settled through discussion, not further reversions.  <span style="">14:02:23 Thu 14 Apr 2011


 * If I'm reading your last message correctly — and I certainly might not be — you seem to be suggesting that I didn't/don't understand the situation here. But I think I "grasp" it okay. :) I've looked at the revision history and the discussions between you and he on your talk pages.  And you're very clearly as guilty as he for this near-edit-war. You've done some kneejerk reverting just like him. Once again, tardis:vandalism policy and tardis:editing policy do not offer you any sort of cover in this instance.  The ability to freely remove incorrect information applies only when the user has obviously inserted intentionally false information.


 * For instance, if someone edited the Fifth Doctor and asserted that "he, Nyssa and Tegan regularly engaged in threesomes", that would be an obvious attempt to insert intentionally false information. There's no DWU story which could be possibly interpreted along those lines.


 * That's not the case, here. This is probably false information, but it is certainly not intentionally false information.  He's studied the scene very carefully and come up with a different conclusion than you and apparently Revan.  But, and this is the important bit, it's not vandalism to be honestly, but adamantly, wrong.  Were that the case, every single editor on this wiki, including me and you, would require blocking at some point or another.  Vandalism does not mean, and cannot be seen to mean, "editing against the will of an admin".  And when you say, "I saw it as obvious vandalism as the user re-added even though I countered it" — well, it really looks as if you're saying, "I told him not to, I explained why, he did it anyway, so it's obviously vandalism."  And that's in no way the definition of vandalism.


 * Again, I see your side and I believe you were absolutely behaving in good faith. This information was, in your eyes, ridiculous, and you didn't want the site cluttered with it. So you did what you saw as your job and reverted it.  That's a perfectly noble and appropriate goal. The problem here is that you aren't actually dealing with a vandal — he just has a different opinion.  He honestly thinks the article needs this interpretation of the scene.  That's why you should both retire to the discussion page and hash it out, hopefully getting other editors to join in the discussion.  Then, the war can be avoided, and consensus can establish the way forward.


 * And I am sorry that the heading for this section caused offense or alarm. I was merely being evenhanded by using the same word I'd used on his page.   <span style="">15:33:33 Thu 14 Apr 2011


 * I don't really understand most of your last post. You say you didn't revert his edit, then you immediately say that you "essentially" did.  You said the matters were discussed, then you admit that that discussion amounted to "explain[ing] that he was wrong".  So which was it?  Genuine discussion? Or just saying, "No, you're wrong."  What you fail to leave out of your account is the fact that he was vigorously countering your points.  He was saying, both on the discussion page, and in the page history, "I've counted, look again."  In other words, you were both saying the same thing:  "I've looked at this scene and I disagree with your interpretation."  That's precisely when you take matters to the talk page and involve other people by saying, "Hey can you guys please take a look at that scene and report back here which interpretation you support?"


 * No, you didn't threaten Dalekcaan with admin action. I never claimed you did. And you did exactly the right thing by not doing so.  I'm just talking about what you've said to me, and how you've tried to argue that you're not close to violating editing policy.  In order for you not to be in violation of editing policy, Dalekcaan would have had to have been vandalizing.  But he wasn't.  He just plain ol' unambiguously wasn't.  Disagreeing with your interpretation of a scene is not an act of vandalism.  And if there's no vandalism, then your repeated removal of the material is not protected under What isnt' an edit war.


 * You are therefore bound by the normal provisions of the edit war policy — which means you can't revert more than 4 times in 36 hours.


 * Thus all this comes down to a simple question: how many times have you reverted ("essentially" or otherwise) Dalekcaan's work on this article? I count three.  Once at (Hawaiian time) 2351 on the 13th, again at 0231 on the 14th, and most recently at 0246.  Do it again before Saturday and you are in violation of editing policy.


 * That's all my warning was meant to convey to you. Just, "Hey, the line's right there and you're about to fall over it."


 * As for what I expected you to do, the thing that would have helped more than anything would've been to have taken it to the talk page, where you could've solicited other people's opinions.


 * As for what I could have done better, yes, it would've been best not to immediately follow warning with block. Unfortunately, my computer was moving too slowly then to allow for it.  There was serious lag between me pressing "publish" and it actually getting time stamped.  There was something on the order of five minutes between the two events.  By the time it was finally up, he'd already reverted again, and I blocked, thinking (wrongly, since TD changed the rules) that he'd already crossed over the line.  Actually, though, our blocking policy does introduce the notion of a "no-warning block", so it's not that huge a thing that there was no gap between warning and blocking.  But I do agree that it would have been preferable in this instance.  <span style="">17:09:34 Thu 14 Apr 2011

Stub list
In more pleasant news, yeah, a stub list will be forthcoming at some point, though it'll be attached to tardis:stub, not the template list. That template list article should be deleted; it's pretty useless, because of how incomplete an understanding of templates it displays. It's sorta propagating a myth of what templates are. <span style="">13:12:43 Thu 14 Apr 2011