User talk:Ghelæ

Infoboxes
How can i create diffrent Infoboxs, is there Admins here, whos in charge? (No Pun intended) User:Joker1138
 * For now, just create a topic at the Panopticon (look for the "create new topic" inputbox) and suggest the new infobox there. 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

a reply to the reply u put on my talk

 * Yes
 * Yes
 * I'n sorta new on this wiki so I don't know any other users to ask.
 * --Si 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, go to the Panopticon.
 * Yes, you can. There's a whole category of infoboxes you can use. Some other people do.
 * Well, me, ***Stardizzy*** and Tangerineduel are ususally on this wiki, and Joker1138, Azes13 and Mantrid also often edit on here, although much less often, as admins do. 15:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

H.T.L
firstly just to let u know on ur infobox i've edited it from "time lord in training" to "human time lord (training)" --Si 20:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC) secondly my reply to this:
 * "First of all, the Time Lords were the ruling class of Gallifrey. As far as I'm aware, the Human Time Lords aren't currently ruling anything."
 * Just wait. eventually this wikia will be called "the Human Time Lord Wikia".


 * "Second of all, the Time Lords had very advanced tech - TARDISes, stellar manipulators, interstellar travel, etc. The most advanced tech the Human Time Lords seem to have is computers. However, it should only be a few thousand years until Time Lord technolgy is within Humanity's metaphorical technological grasp, and I'm sure the Time Lords didn't have all their technology in their beginning."
 * How do u know i haven't got a TARDIS, and Joker1138 claims to have one.--Si 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked what we are supposed to do. well i think the best thing to do currently is to find anyone else who'd like to train to become one. their are 3 easy steps 1.ask if they want to do it. 2.put their name on the members list on both the list on my page ant the h.t.l page (i read somewhere u have to get permission to edit other people's user page so to to let u know u've got permission to edit it by adding names) 3. ask them on their infobox the add the fact their a human time lord (training).

Also i fegot to tell u this but if ur a h.t.l u have permission to edit the h.t.l page (for the right reasons obviously) and to edit the h.t.l section on my page to put members name on. p.s renember to tell any users u invite to h.t.l this. thx---Si 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To your replies to my comments - heh!
 * To everything else - ok. 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

plus i'd prefer if u answer on either my talk page or the h.t.l page. thx--Si 09:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, well I have replied on the H.T.L talk page now. 18:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A reply to this


 * Alright:
 * Perhaps... although because it isn't about Human Time Lords it should be "the Human Time Lords' Wikia".
 * Well where's mine then? I'm one now so I should have one!
 * Well, it's a start, but once we have enough Human Time Lords (say about six to ten) then what? Or will we decide when they've joined the order?
 * How does the training take place / work?
 * I've already edited some of it for grammar, so I hope you didn't mind.
 * 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I found my /tardis. but it's not working propely yet. wish it would coz i'm always late for stuff. it seems Joker1138 has already got one and using it. ask him. while ur at it tell him i've been waiting for a reply to my invitation i sent him.
 * Yeh i think 10 will be enough, although we won't stop their. yep. we will decide when they've joined the order.
 * I'll think about what the training will be. it should be ready when we have 10 time lords.

Also a question. What's the Dalek Hierarchy thx --Si 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

promotion
see this--Si 12:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!
I appreciate the welcome! Thanks a bunch! Look forward to getting into what seems like a fun community! Did you enjoy Smith and Jones? -- Lost Soul 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep! I was counting down the hours until it started! I even had a timer ready for the last half-an-hour! The next episode looks great! For that matter, I should expand the article about Carrionites (the witches in the next episode) about what we know about them from the trailer. 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * :) I posted a bit of bio for Martha - what do you reckon? I'm also planning to make a nav bar for the Doctor's companions... any thoughts on that? -- Lost Soul 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fixed up the bio, we're in-universe in this wiki so we write about, say, the Battle of Canary Wharf like Wikipedia would write about, say, the Battle of Britian.
 * There've been a lot of comapions, about 40 in the TV series since An Unearthly Child in 1963 alone, so perhaps not the best idea.
 * 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough ;) I just hope there's some pages for me to make tomorrow morning when I come back on :) -- Lost Soul 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You should be so lucky :) 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hurray...thank you..."Nothing in the world can stop me now!"...except sea weed. --Tangerineduel 03:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm... you're welcome, I suppose. 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Me Again

 * Sorry to bother you, but do you have story synopsises anywhere? I can't find them... 06:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you mean? Do you mean for the new episode articles you're writing? In which case, I think it should wait until the episode has been broadcast, and then steal borrow the synopses from Wikipedia. 07:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I mean like plot outlines; basically, what happened in the episode. For example, episodes like The Invasion have them, but some recent episodes do not. Are there plans to write them, because I think that would be a very good thing to do... -- 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but, like I said (or typed, whatever), we usually take them from the Wikipedia articles, then we relink them to suit us, and then change a bit of wording if needed. 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok, no worries. Also, my sig code is showing up on talk pages. How do I sort that? 07:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a minute, I'll see if I can sort that, just let me upload a better Judoon pic... 07:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! :) -- 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A Question

 * Hey there! I have a question for you: How do you put on pre-loadable topic outlines? I have made a wiki myself and wish to add the option to click and automatically load an outline. Do you know how this is done? I would be most grateful. Regards, -- 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you have to edit a certian page in the MediaWiki: namespace. See MediaWiki:Newarticletext for the example on this wiki (and click "View Source" to see the code). Of course, it helps if you have the templates first. 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much!!! That's great!!! -- 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Yes, I realize it's just a standard welcome template, but I've been looking for some links to things I can contribute to... sorta... well, actually I haven't, so you just saved me a bunch of time, so thanks! I look forward to helping to make this wiki SEXEH!!! =D -- NOTASTAFF  GPT ( talk )( eating ) 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for agreeing with me on the Tenth Doctor page the episodes do clutter up the page. I will work on the Master storyline but can you help a little bit or if I make a mistake fix it a little any help you can offer would be great.--The 10th Doctor 21:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Like the Star Wars Wiki couldn't we put the refrences at the bottom of the page that would be so much easier and the article would be a lot less crowded.--The 10th Doctor 22:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Toys
Hi I was wondering if I could make a Dr Who Figures part to this wikia.

Thanx, DH

Gotten
I noticed on another user page that you made the flat assertion that the word "gotten" isn't a real word. Of course it is. At least in American English, the verb "to get" is highly irregular. It effectively has two past participles, used in different contexts. That is "have got" and "have gotten" have different meanings.
 * I've got some money for food implies a state of being. It is, strictly, the present perfect tense, meaning that it applies presently, but it may be the result of some action in the past.   It's what I informally call the "MacArthur tense".  "I have returned", as the General may well have said, is an example of this tense.  It looks like it's talking about the past, but really it's talking about something that is presently true.  A state of being, if you will.  Thus, if you say you've got some money, it means you still do and that you're not really talking about how you got it in the past.  The emphasis is on the helping verb, "to have", not on the main verb "to get".
 * I've gotten some money for food is probably a reflection of the importance of French to American English. It is, for lack of a better description, a borrowing of the French tense, passé composé.  The emphasis is on the main verb, "to get", not on the helping verb "to have".   It means, in other words, that you are talking about the process of obtaining the money.   Yes, you still have the money, but the thing you're stressing is that you've completed the task of getting it.  Generally, it would require some sort of prepositional phrases or adjectives in order to make it clear.  In the sentences, "I've gotten some money for food by working", the dangling prepositional phrase makes it absolutely clear you're talking about the process of getting money, and not the fact of having it.

Another example might make this clearer. If you say, "I've got the mail (or newspaper or dog or email or whatever)," it means that you have it in your possession. If you say, "I've gotten the mail," it means that you have completed the process of walking to the mailbox, retrieving the letters, and bringing them back into the house.

Thus there are a number of things heard in British English that sound odd in American English. For instance, the British phrase "I've got rich," sounds wrong as a description of financial affairs (although it's completely appropriate if you're holding on to a guy named, "Rich"). If you undergo the process of obtaining wealth, then you "have gotten rich".  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  19:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I remember saying that. Well... in Britain, as far as I'm aware, "I got" is used, not "I've gotten". Also, if I remember rightly (although I might not as it was quite a while ago), many of the contributions by that user with "gotten" would have been just as clear - if not clearer - with completely different verbs. Either way, I've never heard "gotten" used in British English, and British English is the standard on this wiki. I could be wrong, though. 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thing is, though, both "got" and "gotten" date back to Middle English. They're in the language on both sides of the Atlantic; the only difference is that in North America, a specific usage attaches to each form of the word, whereas in the UK, they're interchangeable (even if, in your particular dialect, one is preferred over the other).   Here are some examples in modern British usage: An article about pensions from unbiased.co.uk, Poll question from a UK opinion research firm, An article from the Yorkshire Online Magazine (search for "gotten").     Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  19:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well, maybe "gotten" is used in British English. But I still don't think that we should use "gotten" (or even "got" in most cases) because the word can have a lot of meanings, and IMO words with more specific meanings should be used. 20:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Special Weapons Daleks
Hi, could you delete that page again? It was recently created again by 66.30.114.196. --213.89.174.236 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, please ignore the above statement :-P --213.89.174.236 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Eye of Orion
As you're the original editor of the above article, I'll come straight to you. It's really your page-creating foundation for the article that concerns me:
 * The Eye of Orion was a planet. It used to be a thriving holiday resort, but after the Last Great Time War struck it, it was converted into a shrine of the War, with only small memorial, nameless due to the many who died in the war. At this point, the only other structures were scattered ruins.


 * During its time as a shrine to the War, the Eye of Orion was still and quiet, covered in ruins, grass and mist. (Martha Jones's Myspace blog)

And I have to ask the question: is Martha Jones' Myspace blog really a source we want to use? Okay it's official, but do we really want to cite something that will be completely unverifiable at some point? One has to presume that at some point, the BBC will stop maintaining the site and then all its information will be gone.

Moreover, look what happened to the UNIT "official" website. It was later completely contradicted by the television series about its most basic content; the meaning of the acronym. We all know the reasons the United Nations Intelligence Taskforce became the Unified Intelligence Taskforce, but the truth is these sites are meant to be only ephemerally correct. If the show wants or needs to contradict one of these "fictional webistes", it'll do so without batting an eyelash.

But the biggest problem is that the blog post in question is grammatically problematic when it comes to making a definitive statement about what the Eye is or isn't. Here's the offending line, quoted verbatim, with the difficult bit in bold:
 * "And I realised that the memorial, like the one back on in the Eye of Orion, meant that we didn't forget the people we left behind."

See, if it's "on the Eye of Orion", then we can probably assume that the Eye is a planet. If it's "in the eye of Orion", then the Eye is some kind of astronomical phenomenon that's not a planet. Add to that the fact that it's written from Martha's perspective and it's obvious you really can't use the site as a reference to say what the Eye is or isn't.

I just think that somehow going to a myspace blog is really reaching, especially since it appears not to have been proofread carefully.

I'd propose the compromise of keeping this info, but definitely not having it in the lead. Perhaps another section could be created with the name, "Martha's impression of the Eye".  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  09:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)