User talk:Rob T Firefly

Why is a mouse when it spins?
Answers on a postcard. Rob T Firefly 13:17, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Doctor
Personally do you think this article is ready to be featured? - ChildofGallifrey 10:15, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with a discussion on the forums
Hi, I'd value your input/discussion on this topic in the forums Forum:Italics or Quotation marks?, I'm not comfortable making a ruling solely based on a running conversation between myself and CzechOut and would value other regular editors' points of view on this issue. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 06:39, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Formatting the Doctors
Hey. You were part of the discussion above. I was wondering if you could have a look at the discussion as I have given a new reply including an example page, and maybe we could start discussing it again now that we'll have time before the Christmas special. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 20:53, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Confidential
Hey, thanks for your help with the Confidential pages, but the truth is, I wasn't really ready to launch Newpage Con just yet. I really hadn't expected anybody to find it yet, much less actually do anything with it. I certainly wasn't expecting someone to come through and create blank pages for everything on the weekend of the DW finale. I was waiting on the conclusion of the Forum:Italics or Quotation marks? discussion, and then I was going to put up the new format for discussion. I wasn't quite sure that whether those subheads were sufficient. I still think there could have been a subhead for "Musical cues in the episode", for example, as some people might want to know what the music was in a particular episode. And discussion might have brought forward other possible subheads. Now an entire range has been launched without any discussion, and that's not really the most desirable way to do things round here. So it's good, in one sense, that you've taken some initiative here. But on the other hand, you've jumped the gun a bit. If you see a newly-created but not-yet-widely-used infobox in future, you might want to just take a moment to ask the creator why they've not gone full-speed ahead on it yet. Remember that templates aren't things where you want to put up inuse, because inuse can interfere with the new template you're trying to create.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  18:32, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Rob T Firefly 23:08, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Protected until broadcast
Hey, just wanted to ask if I can move your template on your user sub-page to a more template-specific name. That way the history of your edits/creation stay in place rather than me copying and pasting and creating a new template. --Tangerineduel 13:04, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Rob T Firefly 14:43, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

20:09:44 Fri 11 Mar 2011

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

conjecture
Thanks for the excellent picture suggestion. It's been adopted. That particular shot of the psychic paper was perfect, because it was relatively "tall", and yet its basic dimensions were 200px. This is important on banners where users can enter text, because I can just crop the picture a little wider than 200px, allowing for it to "grow" as people enter their rationales. Very well spotted. :) If you have any other suggestions for things that don't have pics yet — like rename — lemme know.   19:12:35 Thu 12 May 2011

Valeyard
Hey. The lead for The Valeyard page mentions something about him being "the essence of the Doctor's negative emotion". Can you clarify this as I can't remember whether it was said or implied? ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 18:19, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Reply
The answer is simply: It must be a screenshot that we used in our infoboxes. We could screen crop the "C" that is on a Cyberman's chest and us that, or just leave it empty. Mini-mitch\talk 19:09, May 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a difficult question, the only answer I can think of is it was assumed when we had the disccusion in the fourms and screenshots and promtional images. I'm personally just sticking to the MOS, and these image are not promotional but are not screenshots. What would you call them? It would be a good thing to have a discussion about in the fourms: either to change the polciy or to double check the policy. Personally, I see nothing wrong with them, but my instics as an admin tells me to remove it when I see them.


 * There are a couple more of these images in the Usued Image section of Ood Operations and of the Library. The Library one was removed on the same grounds as I have removed this, and I also removed the Ood Operations one on the same grounds. I say again, it would be a thing that should be raised in the forums if you're still unsure and you think that they should be allowed. Mini-mitch\talk 19:31, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

DWDVD
Hey Rob :) I just wanted to stop by and personally tell you that I've deleted DWDVD.  It can be restored in future if the forum discussion definitively rules it appropriate.  However, I thought you moved a little fast to creation without giving people time to really think about he proposal.  It's not a "no-brainer" decision; there are a lot of moving parts to consider.  A lot of these prefixes are added with a simple up/down vote lasting no more than a few days, but this one I really felt like I had to call back to the line.  See my rationale at forum:Meanwhile in the TARDIS.  04:26:26 Sat 11 Jun 2011

Mini-mitch\talk 14:51, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Actor infobox
The "no imdb error" has been corrected.

Oh, and when you get a chance, please come into compliance with tardis:signature policy by adding a link to user talk:Rob T Firefly in your signature. It makes it easier to talk with you. The link can take pretty much any form you want; some people have a big, honkin' "talk to me", others have no more than a pipe tricked dash — still others have their first name linked to their user page and their surname to their talk page.

(If you already have added such a link by the time you read this message, please disregard.) 13:12:27 Sun 11 Sep 2011

Padbury
Wow, no, sorry. My memory doesn't appear to include such things. I noticed you replaced it with a superior image anyway, so it's not really a big issue.-- 16:48, October 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Stan avatar? That's my passport photo... -- 17:33, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Firefox watch
Hey :) Skittles told me today that you use Firefox regularly and that you noticed the massive shift that happened today for Firefox users.  I was wondering if you could help me out a bit.  My workflow is horrible, in that I start doing things on layout and design only to be interrupted by issues of content and policy.  So sometimes I kinda forget to check how CSS changes are looking in Firefox, because I don't keep a Mozilla browser open all the time, like I do with Opera and Webkit.  So if you start to see things losing their formatting in Firefox, could you drop me a line?  I'd really appreciate it.   23:28: Mon 10 Oct 2011

''Destiny of the Doctors
Just wanted to let you know personally that I have locked down Doctor Who: Destiny of the Doctors, as the editing between you and OttselSpy25 was coming close to an edit war. Tardis:Editing policy makes it incumbent on me to try to cool editing conflicts by locking articles for brief periods of time to try to force discussion on the talk page. So that article will be outta reach for about 71 more hours. Who knew that Destiny of the Doctors would ever engender such passionate edting? You should be aware that OS25 may not respond quickly to your messages on that talk page, but he'll be back with us tomorrow. 05:10: Tue 11 Oct 2011

DDD
Hey, I want to pearsonally apologise for my poor edicuite, and for the fact that I don't know why that H is so big.

By the way, I appreciate your editing on Destiny of the Doctors, and I am very happy to see another fan that enjoys the game so much. It's in my top ten list of episodes. Sorry for the hullabolu, througout that hole thing I never thought once to check the Chat page.

So I heard you saying you were gonna play the game again to look for more stuff. Hows that 'goin? (I think I have noticed a key point in the canon of the third Doctor)OttselSpy25 talk to me 15:42, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

MM/ Want to talk? 17:44, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

My BFCDE rudeness
Sorry, it's awfully rude of me to delete what you'd created at BFCDE, because you'd certainly given appropriate waiting times in the forum. I've been there every day this week with the intention of responding, but every time I got distracted by needed to archive old threads. I did actually have objections, which are explained in detail at the forum thread. Sorry for not speaking up earlier and saving you the trouble of page creation. 03:16: Sat 05 Nov 2011

Idris
I understand how frustrating it is to have work deleted without an alternate proposed. I should have come here first to leave a message explaining the action, but I didn't. I apologise.

I suppose the reason I took action in that way was because I started seeing, as it were, the "bigger picture". I was deleting a series of images for the same failure, and then it occurred to me that perhaps the image size guidelines were buried in the text of policy pages. It seemed to me that it was a higher priority to use my time to create Help:Image cheat card than to fix that one image.

Additionally, I have had to do some other cleanup today that seemed more urgent than a single picture on a single page.

As to the merits of this photo, I suppose I sort of admire your determination that somehow there's a visual distinction between Idris, and the TARDIS-as-Idris, and that there's only one scene where she's Idris. That said, I don't actually share that opinion. There's no visual distinction between Idris and the TARDIS-as-Idris — not even a costume change — so you can take an image from anywhere in the episode and still be faithfully representing Idris. These cases of body possession are tricky, but I'm of the opinion that unless there's a visible difference between the unpossessed and possessed forms you can use an image of the possessed person to represent the unpossessed person.

As for cropping the image you currently have so that it's brow to chin, I'm not sure I see why that's a problem. Don't forget that the image is only going to display at 250px width, so what might appear to be an extreme closeup at different dimensions is perfectly appropriate (and in some cases preferred) to what you'd want at 800px width. (And, y'anno, no one's going to actually get out a calculator and determine whether you've exactly got a 16:9 aspect ratio. As long as it's basically widescreen, it's cool. I'm pretty sure you can get a bit more out of that pic (or that captured frame) than just brow to chin.)

As for why I'd wouldn't just keep the image around until a better one comes available, I'm simply of the opinion that it's better to have no picture — and even a useful redlink, which alerts people that we need a picture there — than to have one that violates agreed policy. For far too long we've had agreed positions about things, but done nothing to enforce them. What's the point of the Panopticon if we fail to enact what we agree? In my mind, deletion is, as you put it, "doing better" than just leaving a flatly wrong-dimensioned picture in place. It's not as good as replacing the image, I'll grant you, but it's better than leaving a policy-violating image there, which other users might then see as an example of what's okay.

I do want to assure that yours is far from being the only picture deleted for this cause. The "unjustifiably long vs. width" part of the deletion rationale is just part of a drop-down menu that's rubber-stamped onto a page. It is a completely standard reason for deleting a picture, and hasn't been used against you personally. 21:02: Thu 10 Nov 2011


 * Well, I really don't accept that using the picture of a possessed person for the unpossessed person is the same thing at all as using an OOU shot of an actor dressed up like their character. Totally different situations because narratively the possessed person is still the unpossessed person.  Just because she's the TARDIS doesn't mean she's not Idris.  That's the point of possession. Indeed, that's a point explicit in the narrative.  And you're trying to argue that the body of Idris can't be used to illustrate . . . the body of Idris?  That argument holds no great amount of water with me.


 * In any event, you claim there's no widescreen imagery of her available, but surely there's that whole scene at the moment of possession in the teaser, and there's the bit when she's dead at the end. I'd argue that her being possessed is particularly illustrative of her character.  She's only significant to the DWU because she got possessed by the TARDIS, so how can you argue that the moment of possession isn't illustrative of her character?  Or indeed that her dead corpse doesn't show us, ironically, a "vital" part of her character?  Both make sense to me as capturing the two most crucial moments of her existence.  It matters that she was possessed by the TARDIS; it matters that she died because of it.  The rest of her life doesn't matter at all to us.   22:31: Thu 10 Nov 2011