User talk:Revanvolatrelundar

Wikipedia plots
Please do not copy wikipedia plots, especially without giving credit. And there is no need to add a link to the page on the page, this just makes the link bold and serves no purposes. Thank-you. The Thirteenth Doctor 12:44, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

i didnt add the plot, just fixed the crazy box error Revanvolatrelundar 12:48, August 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * In defence of Revanvolatrelundar it was an IP editor who added the plot from Wikipedia, not Revanvolatrelundar, Revanvolatrelundar just happened to be the next user to edit the article. --Tangerineduel 12:50, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I just saw that he made a large edit and assumed it was him. You have no idea how much of an ass I feel now. Sorry again. The Thirteenth Doctor 17:15, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Past tense
Going over some of your recent edits to the eighth Doctor's page, I noticed you sometimes put in information in the present tense. Please remember that because the article is in-universe, everything should be in past tense. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 14:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

if you look at the edits im going over some other contributors edits and cealning up what they say, and i must say its poorly written and some may have rubbed off on me Revanvolatrelundar 14:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

just had another look and the section your talking about was written by another user that ive been trying to clean up Revanvolatrelundar 14:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did check the histories. In this edit it was minor, you replaced "materialized" with "materialises". In this and this, however the tense is is more noticeable. Do you mean you were you just copying the paragraphs that were written by other users? --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah thats what i meant, ive been getting summaries from various sites and putting them in my own words from the original text one those last couple of edits and some words must have skipped my attention when i wrote them in wrong tense. Revanvolatrelundar 17:36, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I just like to check up and make sure that users know so they don't end up doing it all across the wiki. Better to be safe and sorry than simply sorry. :) --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Unused sections
Please don't remove sections from infoboxes as you did with the Blood of the Cybermen Cybermen in this edit. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 11:36, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

didnt realise i did Revanvolatrelundar 11:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

in fact dont they get automatticaly deleted when not being used, i think i heard tangerineduel say that once Revanvolatrelundar 11:39, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

it was in rich text so that would explain it, it can do some crazy things to edits... like that blue quote box thing when you paste certain things. i just edit things in the mode it gives me, perhaps its time ot start using source mode now :) Revanvolatrelundar 11:50, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they? Oh well, never mind then. I've never seen them, or heard of them, being removed automatically before, so that's why I mentioned it. If you didn't then that's fine. Do you not use the source code, or do you edit the template in the Rich Text editor? I think it only removes it if you edit it there, so perhaps it would be better to edit it in the basic mode. The Thirteenth Doctor 11:44, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

no problem, im just glad you spotted it, cos i sure as hell wouldn't :) Revanvolatrelundar 12:02, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah... well, even when it's regular users, I just like to make sure they know not to remove the sections. Sorry for the inconvenience. The Thirteenth Doctor 11:59, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * The infoboxes used to not work if you removed sections, in between now and then code has been added to most of the infoboxes so that they do work, but it's usually better to keep them in just in case info comes along later that can go into those sections. --Tangerineduel 15:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Tags
Hey, when adding the delete tag, could you put it at the top of the page so it is easily seen by others. I ended up adding a second delete tag to that Unearthly Child page as you put it at the bottom. I know it's not a big problem, but it saves a little time. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 20:22, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Stubs
Hi, can you please leave the stub tag under the info box, as it is easier for User to see if the article is a stub and it also looks better and saves for have white space at the bottom of the page. Cheers. Mini-mitch, 16:00, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I moved becuase the article had infobox issues that i thought the stub was causing.Revanvolatrelundar 16:02, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Canon
Thanks for clearing that up.--Skittles the hog 18:09, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yes
Yes and yes.

And thanks :D

~ThePandoricaOpens666 29th October 2010 (UTC)

The Awakening
How on Earth is The Awakening pseudohistorical? Its not a historical episode, it takes place during the 1980s....?

~User:ThePandoricaOpens666 29th October, 2010 (UTC)

Trouble
recently solar dragon has been mean to me!

I would like you to stop this for me in all respects!

Adding delete tags
Hi, I've noticed when you add the delete tag you place it within a Category link like this. You don't need to do this (it actually leaves the [[Category: on the page), just put on the article, and to make it easier for admins to work out why it's been put up for deletion add  (obviously replacing your reason in that area). Thanks. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 02:03, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Adding cleanup tags
Plese read the text of the cleanup tag before placing it on a page. It is for major cleanup only. It should really only be employed with the grammar of the article is so bad it can't be understood and when there are obvious factual inaccuracies. It is intended for articles that are a total mess, but whose topics are worth saving. Adding sectional heads is not "major", nor is it necessary for every article. Short subjects, such as Fragile Yellow Arc do not require subheads. Also, there were no grammatical errors within the text, nor is the factual accuracy of the article in doubt. I am therefore taking down your cleanup tag yet again. Please do not put back in place unless you are prepared to start a discussion on the talk page, in which you list the specific areas of fault you find with the article.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 19:21, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * With great respect, my recent articles are not "vast text dumps". They are about very limited topics, written in one or two paragraphs, which simply do not require subheads. Yes, I agree that Fragrance itself does, but I wasn't done with that, as my edit history note would've made clear, had you bothered to read it. The other two articles, by contrast, in no way offend the manual of style. There is no rule in the MOS which requires subheads. And, please, if you've not actually experienced the story in question, don't try to edit articles about it. Your recent assertion-by-subhead that the Fragile Yellow Arc had a "purpose" was ludicrous. It's a philosophical concept, not a machine. It doesn't have a purpose. It just is. 19:59, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * By way of clarification, I direct your attention to Tardis:Layout guide — an article directly linked by the MOS — which says, "There are a variety of sources of information to write in-universe articles from and as such there is a somewhat different approach that is less constrained because of the sometimes limited amounts of information on in-universe subjects." This guide in turn leads you to Tardis:Guide to in-universe writing which states "the amount and quality of the information on a subject should influence how articles are written". When specifically detailing the case for writing articles about individuals, clear precedent is set for the notion of the short article. In character, this type of article is described as consisting of an infobox "and usually a single paragraph of information". It goes on to note, however, that "some articles . . . contain all their information within the body of the article and do not contain enough information to be summarised within the infobox."


 * Such is precisely the case with these two "Arc" articles. Unless someone has made one while I wasn't looking, an infobox for philosophical constructs doesn't exist on this wiki. And these articles are absolutely fine as a paragraph or two of text. There's nothing more that could be added to them which would improve the definition or use of the concepts. And frankly your rather artifical headlines like "history" and "purpose" don't even describe the text that you would have flowing underneath them.


 * Your belief that every article must have some sort of pre-defined structure of article subheads is simply not the case on this wiki. Please desist with your arbitrary addition of subheads to in-universe articles.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 20:27, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Simpsons
Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted the picture I put on the Simpsons article? Sontar8 09:58, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

The picture was NOT made by the people who design the simpsons but a fan artist, his pictures were on drwho news pages some time ago and they have no place on this wikia. Revanvolatrelundar 10:02, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I knew that. I just thought they would make the article more interesting. Sorry. Sontar8 10:06, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Battles in Time info
The pleasure is all mine, it is pretty interesting. --MrThermomanPreacher 19:58, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Time placement of Running Out of Time
What's you basis for your very specific placement for this story? I can't see how there's anything in the story to place it specifically between these two rather obscure ST stories you cite. What's your rationale for that placement?

Also, Eighth Doctor - Timeline specifically says we're following the Dr. Who Reference Guide inasmuch as the Eighth Doctor is concerned. I opposed that notion, but the desire to have a common frame of reference for the highly confusing Eighth Doctor's timeline won out. And Running Out of Time doesn't appear on that list yet. I haven't checked your many modifications of late, but, by consensus, the list should be the same as the Reference Guide.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  02:19, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you're using a source that, by consensus, isn't valid for the editing of Eighth Doctor - Timeline. It's supposed to be only the DWRG, so as to keep one voice about things.  Although I disagree with the entire exercise of having pages like this, I suppose I do see the wisdom of keeping to a single source, and going with the longest-standing one, because all these fan-run "reference" sites have to resort to arbitrary placement for most stories.  Just like the guy doing the DWRG, the guy who's editing "Doctor Who - The Complete Adventures" is just arbitrarily choosing spots for the various moments of Running to have occurred.  He's not basing it on any specific content within the story.  So when you say that you've done "research" you don't mean that you've actually gone to the stories and tried to confirm what "The Complete Adventures" says.  You mean you're just accepting what DWTCA says.  But there's nothing actually in the story which links it anywhere.  Sure, it could be after An Earthly Child, but it also could be between Death in Blackpool and Situation Vacant.  Or before the flashback in The Forgotten.  Or right after the TVM.  Or after Coda.  Or between Izzy's last regular appearance and Where Nobody Knows Your Name.  Or before Doctor Who and the Nightmare Game.  All that's required for this story are a few spots where the Eighth Doctor is apparently alone.  You or I could claim any such spot and it'd be fine.  Which is precisely why these timeline pages are a silly waste of time, and why the timeline section on individual story pages should clearly state when there's nothing in a story that suggests any particular time placement.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  18:40, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if the DWRG guide isn't being updated anymore, then you need to go to the forum and open a discussion on how to best replace the previous consensus decision. Before you do, though, you need to make sure it isn't being updated anymore, as opposed to just not having gotten round to putting the latest stories on the site. It's got the First Doctor Box Set ("Farewell Great Macedon" and "The Fragile Yellow Arc of Fragrance"), released at about the same time as Running Out of Time, so I'm not sure why you think it's not being updated.


 * I utterly reject your "best guess" methodology, nor your casual acceptance of "flaws" in articles as being the status quo. Yes, there are errors here, but our job is to get rid of them, not to make more.  We should be striving for maximum factual accuracy based upon what the stories tell us.  And if the stories don't tell us anything about their time placement, it's okay to flatly say, "We don't know when this story occurs".  That's why I'm so thoroughly opposed to these Timeline articles.  They present a listing of stories as if it's fact and give absolutely no context for the assumptions underlying the ordering.  They are "wordless essays", pure opinions but without explanation.   They are not, and never will be, incontrovertible facts.  We are contributing to a falsehood by continuing to include them.


 * Just look at your own editing of Running. First you're saying it comes after ...Be Forgot, now you're saying it's An Earthly Child.  If your own mind can form two reasonable hypothesis, how many other hypotheses must there be out there?   Like I said earlier, all it takes is any one of the many companion-less moments in the Eighth Doctor's life.  Thus it is is better and more accurate to just say, "I don't know" than to force any particular placement.


 * But that's just how I feel. Why do you feel that an encyclopedia like ours should be indulging in speculative exercises like this?   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  20:01, December 10, 2010 (UTC)