User talk:Revanvolatrelundar

FP wiki
Hey, the adoption papers finally came through on w:c:factionparadox. I'm still building the basic infrastructure, but once that's completed — in about a week — would you be interested in becoming an admin over there, too? I notice in the old forums that you seemed to be hinting that you'd liked to have admin rights over there, and I'm sure your interest and knowledge in FP would do the place proud. 15:17: Thu 24 May 2012

Spoilers?
I'm confused about your mention of the spoiler policy. There's nothing in that edit that isn't in the publisher's description of the CD, and I couldn't include spoilers since I haven't heard it yet, as it's unpublished. Gamaliel talk to me 21:45, June 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I read the definition of spoiler you use on this wiki and I understand now. Thanks. Gamaliel talk to me 21:47, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Johann Schmidt
Hi, Revan. I saw your recent reversion of an edit on Klein's Story (audio story), and although I disagreed with it I didn't want to get into an edit war. So I've started a discussion on the talk page. I hope you'll check it out. —Josiah Rowe talk to me 14:37, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Picard articles
As you may have seen, Doug86 put a merge tag on Jean Luc Picard. Since you created the article, presumably you have Short Trips: Life Science. Could you check whether the mention of Picard in Syntax is spelled Jean Luc or Jean-Luc, and let us know at Talk:Jean Luc Picard? I'd be interested in your opinion on the merge proposal too. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe talk to me 00:45, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Rollback question
Hi, would you mind meeting me on the talk page for Cartmel_masterplan? I don't understand why my edit was rolled back. Thanks. Agonaga talk to me 02:09, July 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the courtesy of an answer, I understand now. Cheers Agonaga talk to me 15:18, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

10th Doctor audios on BBC New Adventures Site
Somebody is after deleting the 10th Doctor audios from the BBC New Series Adventures page. Are the audios being moved to a separate page? Or is this an error that should be reversed. The 11th Doctor audios weren't deleted.

I hope you can help!! Thanks!! Ventry Girl talk to me 17:41, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. But you know writers, why not have categories, which are purely set around writers. So then there's a list of all there works in one category to themselves. --Cyruptsaram talk to me 13:59, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it does. --Cyruptsaram talk to me 14:04, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Character Infoboxes
Hi, recently I have been adding new page/updating pages, and I have noticed when you have more than on actor to the voice actor(s) box, the box doesn't read like if there are multiple actors in the Other Actors box. An example of this is on the Davros page where in the Other Actors part its says David Gooderson, Terry Molloy, Julian Bleach but in the Voice Actor(s) it says voice actor::Rory Jennings, Colin Baker  and exactly the same type code, or what ever it is actually called, is written on the editing page, Other Actors David Gooderson, Terry Molloy, Julian Bleach, Voice Actors Rory Jennings, Colin Baker. Tahnks if you can get it sorted. (AdricLovesNyssa: 17:30 (UTC) 13th July)

Blocking reversal
While I think there are occasions where one admin can lift the block of another, great care should be taken when doing so. If a ban has been clearly communicated to the user in question, and doesn't violate the length it was said to be, it's probably not good form for another admin to take it down.

I told User:Cyruptsaram the ban would be not more than 24 hours, and I returned to his page in less than that amount of time. His work, had he continued in the vein he was going, would have been ripped out by the bot, anyway, so I was just saving him time. Yes, I would have preferred to have been able to come back to him slightly quicker, but real life got in the way. Nevertheless, 19 hours is hardly what anyone could call a "harsh" period of time, especially when it involved actually going through his edits one-by-one. A little 30 minute ban wouldn't have been practicable in this instance, because there was the actual work of a review to do.

This wasn't a case of, "Hey, there's this policy over here, take 5 minutes to read it please, before you continue editing." It was a more complicated situation which required a bit of work in order for me to be thorough in my response to the user.

I think if you'll read the latest comment on his page, you'll see that there was indeed a real cause for concern with his work, and that I took the time to thoroughly explain it.

It's probably a best practice to come to the ban-issuer to discuss taking it down, unless there are just no good reasons given in the blocking notes or on the offending user's talk page. By suggesting there was something wrong with the ban I issued, the causes for the ban — to which you never referred in your message on this user's page — seem less important. You were stressing things in his contribution pattern which were completely irrelevant tot he block. Sure, it's great he's doing somethings with non-TV productions, but the block was for what he was doing to. . . TV productions.

And please do not "completely agree" with user:Boblipton when he's saying that I have "gotten trapped in a bureaucratic mindset", that I've "locked [him] out once", that "the manual of style is unreadable and badly intentioned" or that I in any way implied that Cyruptsaram was "not the best writer in the world" or told him that he "didn't do some damned bureaucratic nonsense". None of those things are true, Revan, and you, another admin, just told a new user that they are. You used your admin status to agree with a user who was basically telling Cyruptsaram to ignore the mean, nasty, old CzechOut.

I'm assuming that you didn't actually mean that you "completely" agreed with all that Bob bile. But if you feel that I actually am guilty of all those things, you and I need to have a further conversation. 15:47: Mon 16 Jul 2012
 * Cool, that's all pretty much what I thought, but I guess I was more concerned with what Cyruptsaram might think, since he doesn't really know any of us. I think the flat reading of your sentence is that you do agree with all of what Bob was saying — and since he calls me a bastard in his diatribe, you can see how I'd be concerned. I didn't actually think you believed that, but again, I was concerned that Cyrupt might have read the sentence that way.


 * It might have been clearer had you said that you were agreeing with me instead of Bob, since my original post contained the same sentiment to which you were agreeing. I'm a little baffled by why both you and Bob didn't see that I had praised Cyrupt for his work and gone out of my way to assure him that this wasn't in any way a punitive block.


 * In any case, as between you and me — no harm, no foul. 16:17: Mon 16 Jul 2012