User talk:Patrick Watt

Image at Dalek removed
Please note that our image use policy in conjunction with our manual of style regulates the kinds of pictures that can be used. One of the more important concepts is that a publicity still, being an out-of-universe shot, cannot be used on an in-universe page. Thus, I have reverted the image you placed in the infobox at Dalek. I can quite appreciate that the image currently there is perhaps insufficient, because it only shows post-Victory of the Daleks models, but, still, you cannot use a publicity shot on that page. Perhaps you could find an image from within Victory that has most types together? Or maybe you could make an image using various models in different segments, as we've done with the picture to your right. 00:15: Thu 29 Sep 2011

Daleks
Hey, while your suggestion is good, I'm quite firmly against collage images. Don't worry - I'm not abnormal - I too hate the new Daleks, but we don't want to have loads of unnecessary collages littered around when a single image works just fine in most cases. Raise it at the forums if you fell strongly about though, as my word is far from definitive.-- 14:19, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, open a forum topic on it. Please keep messages about the same subject under one heading and remember to sign your posts.-- 07:43, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Chat
Hey, sorry for missing you in chat earlier today. I tend to have a lot of windows opened, and that one gets buried. Coupla points, though. Chat is still effectively "in beta". It occasionally behaves weirdly, as when it signs people in and out for no reason. You seem to have mistaken my disconnections and reconnections as an intentional effort to get rid of you. They weren't. It was just the chat window being. . . the wikia chat window. And it could hardly have been intentional, since I wasn't even aware of what was going on in that window. Another thing, you called me a jerk twice in chat. Sorry you feel that way, but our ] rule, as confirmed through our [[tardis:chat policy|chat policy doesn't allow for such things. Please don't attack other users directly like that in future. I'll let you off with a warning this time, but be aware that sort of behavior can lead to really long bans.  Thanks :)

I'm actually intrigued by your multi-color-but-not-Skittles®-Dalek idea, and would love to hear it. 17:49: Mon 10 Oct 2011

Welcoming is automatic
Please don't start another person's user talk page manually, as you did at user talk:Jake Fraser. I know you're just trying to be friendly, and that's great! However, it interferes with normal bot operation, and prevents user:Wikia from automatically placing the welcome template, which gives users important starting information. We really need to make sure that all new users are given a message which clearly says: 1) no spoilers and 2) use British English. New users will get such a message immediately upon making their first edit. So, please: let the bot do its job. Thanks :) 23:42: Thu 13 Oct 2011

Chat
When reporting an technical problem, please give more details than "I'm having an error". It's incredibly unlikely that I did anything to affect chat, but still, I need more to go on before I can even begin to help you. 22:47: Fri 21 Oct 2011

Formal warning: spoilers not allowed
Consider this your final warning. After considerable thought, I have decided not to block you at the present time. Rather, I'm going to give you one more chance. Even if you've done so before, go now and read our spoiler policy and our chat policy. You must understand what this wiki considers to be a spoiler, and that the general policies of the wiki do apply in chat. Don't repeat or reference spoilers except where the spoiler policy allows. Don't try to "skirt around" the policy by using "code language". If you spoil other editors, they may choose not to edit with us. That's why if you break spoiler policy again, you will be prevented from editing for at least one month. 01:18: Fri 28 Oct 2011

file:200px-Tenth_Doctor.jpg
The above-named file was deleted for violating several rules. It was mis-licensed (you said it was a screenshot when really it was a publicity shot), it had a bad aspect ratio, it was narrower than the minimum 250px width, and the subject was looking straight into camera. You should probably take a look at our image cheat card before uploading any more pictures. 22:47: Fri 18 Nov 2011

timelink vol. 1
I'm not sure what you;'re talking about. I don't generally do much about images,. If I did something right, you're welcome. If you're being sarcastic, oh well. Sorry. Boblipton talk to me 23:24, November 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I assure you it was inadvertant.  Sometimes junk characters appear.  Sometimes the code is unstable,.  I expect that's what happened. Boblipton talk to me 23:32, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

You have me confused with someone else
I've never opposed your using a multiple Dalek image at Dalek. Please read the first comment on this page. I suggested that option.

However, you will have to go through the process of submitting it for consideration, because everyone does not share my view. At the end of the day, a multiple image might not succeed in this case because a Dalek is a Dalek is a Dalek. The difference between old and new series Daleks, up to an including the Victory Daleks, is not so great as the difference between old and new series Silurians.

And Ten doesn't need a pic. The original infobox has been restored, including the pic that was there at the time it was overwritten. 23:37: Fri 18 Nov 2011

Watch your tenses, please
According to this diff, you introduced the present tense into the initial paragraph of the article at The Doctor. It is extremely important that you refrain from this type of editing in the future. T:TENSES is extremely clear on this point: only the past tense may be used in the in-universe portion of articles. 23:26: Sat 03 Dec 2011

Dalek collage
You'll need to put that up for discussion at forum:panopticon and/or talk:Dalek. It's not appropriate for it to be submitted to me personally for approval. I will say, however, that I would immediately vote against it because your crop of the "new" Daleks is apparently editorialising. The thing that jumps out at me is that you haven't depicted the whole body of the new Daleks, whereas you have for every other type. Not only does that just look weird, it appears to be a message that you're trying to send. It's also a bit weird that you've used profiles of older Daleks but not the new ones, as if you're trying in every way possible to "hide" the "bump in the trunk". I do like the width and color of the dividing lines, as well as the basic layout. 23:20: Sun 04 Dec 2011
 * You still are laboring under the false notion that I'm the final word on this. You really need to get general consensus on the idea of a collage before you spend a lot of time on the particulars of it.  21:46: Mon 05 Dec 2011


 * Coupla points.


 * Minor one first. Please stop starting new sections for each note you leave on my page.  See how I've kept all replies to this topic under one section heading on your page?  That's how it should be.  I have any number of conversations going at any one time, and I need to be able to follow them under a single heading.  You'll find that this is quite standard talk page behavior throughout Wikia and Wikipedia.  And again, I implore you to sign your posts every single time.


 * Now to the more important stuff. Chat, per policy is never to be used in substitution of talk page or forum discussion.  Imagine this scenario:
 * You change something contentious on the wiki, like this Dalek pic
 * I ask you why you did that
 * You say that you got "consensus in chat"
 * Well, there's only one response to that chain of events. I will immediately strike down whatever you changed. So will Tangerineduel.  So, I'd wager, would most admin. Sure, people use chat to cut down the communication time, but if it's your only basis for making a contentious change, it will probably be struck down immediately if it is in any way challenged.


 * You know for a fact that you don't have unanimous support for a collage design. Skittles is on record on your talk page as opposing the idea.  That makes this a contentious notion, and therefore one that cannot be solved in chat.


 * You are most mistaken in your assumption that "very [few] people use [talk pages]". Look at the discussion at Talk:The Master on the infobox pic.  Talk pages do occasionally become the hottest pages on the wiki, and The Master (and Talk:River Song) have recently been examples of this.


 * Also, the stats don't bear out your talk page sleight. Just since July there have been almost 3000 edits to article talk pages.  During the "on-season" for DW, this number can be huge; in just June 2010 alone, there were 1,785 talk page edits.  So don't confuse your preferences with the preferences of the community.  Remember, too, that any admin can turn off chat at any time.  It's not an indivisible part of the wiki, and has only been active for less than 10% of the wiki's lifespan.


 * For all these reasons, if you want your infobox pic to stick, you must submit it to community discussion on a talk page or a forum page. There's no getting around this step.


 * Look, I know it's a pain in the ass to submit it properly for discussion. But once consensus falls in your favor — assuming, of course, that it does — it'll be hard as hell to displace the image. It'll take another round of discussion to change it.  Which is pretty unlikely. Moreover, the discussion will actually improve the image.  You probably won't get your initial design approved, but comments from other people will strengthen and change the design.  And that sort of collaborative editing is really what wiki editing is about.


 * Finally, please do not post any more pictures to my page on this subject. There are only two appropriate places for them: Talk:Dalek or a thread in the Panopticon.  I will not offer further opinions about your Dalek infobox pics except in the context of a proper community discussion.  It's a waste of my time and yours.  18:45: Wed 07 Dec 2011

See ya in the New Year
Your editing rights are being suspended until Jan 1, 2012 because: Clearly, the ban is of a multi-week length for the second offense more than the first. Your right to edit this talk page has not been suspended, should you wish to post any remarks.
 * 1) You continuously fail to sign your posts on talk and discussion pages. Your latest contribution to Talk:Dalek again has no signature, despite my reminder not more than 24 hours ago, and several reminders in the past.  You now have three comments in a row at Talk:Dalek without a signature, spanning a period of two months. You really do have to obey tardis:signature policy, and I guess it's gonna take temporary banning to impress that fact upon you.
 * 2) You have threatened vandalism of Dalek — one of the wiki's most-frequented pages — on Talk:Dalek in order to get your way. I quote from your 24 October 2011 edit: Okay, it's official: if someone reverts the image I added back to the crappy "new" version, I will delete all content from this page. I kid you not. I don't mean to be a tyrant, but I will do anything to maintain accuracy. ANYTHING. Seriously, it says so on my profile. This kind of behavior simply isn't on.  Page blanking is specifically disallowed by our deletion policy and certainly is one of the specifically-mentioned definitions of vandalism.  You can neither threaten nor carry out such anti-social behavior.

In the meantime, I strongly suggest that you use this time to read our policies thoroughly so that you will be productive upon your re-entry into the editing community. 23:06: Thu 08 Dec 2011

Response
As I can no longer edit anywhere but here, this is the place where I must write "Patrick Watt's" last words.

Czech, I accept that many of my early actions on this database were ignorant, emotionally driven, and above all, inexcusable. However, I offer my heartfelt apologies for those actions, and I can finally assure you that they will never happen again. When 2012 rolls around, Patrick Watt will no longer exist, and I will have started fresh with a new profile and a better knowledge of the rules around here. Thank you for giving me the chance to begin again with a clean slate.

Finally, a thousand thanks for finally proposing the idea of fixing up the Daleks' main page. I guess I'll consider that my Christmas present. Meanwhile, I will work on improving my little creation, using Tybort's suggestion of making it all "1-Dalek" pics or "3-Dalek" pics. When does the poll end?

Anyway, thank you again for everything, and Merry Christmas.

Patrick Watt talk to me 21:33, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Oh - another reason we should use the collage picture: according to the "Doctor Who Brilliant Book 2011", Steven Moffat said in an interview that he's keeping the "Classic" Dalek design, and the new ones are just going to be an "officer class".

No page blanking
Please note that page blanking, even of "your" own talk page, meets the definition of vandalism. Apparently you didn't read the files I highlighted to you in the above notice of blocking. One of the major reasons that you were blocked was because you threatened page blanking. Now that you've actually done it, even though you were warned not to, I've no choice but to extend your block time a further 15 days. I've also restored the page to its state prior to page blanking, and then re-added the text you yourself most recently added.

I must additionally warn you against using another name when you return. Be very careful about this, as you could easily run foul of T:SOCK, which would result in your permanent banning. It is generally recommended that you not change your name. If you do, however, come back with another name, please be aware that you are required to inform us, by a link on both your original user page and on the new user page, that both accounts are operated by the same person. You cannot, therefore, ever have a completely "clean slate", so you might as well stick to being user:Patrick Watt. 00:42: Sat 10 Dec 2011

Why on Irk did you put "your" in quotation marks?

That aside, you handled that little poll terribly. For one thing, you waited for only three replies, and once the statistics started tipping in your favour, you terminated it and carried out the decision. Also, if you're taking a user-wide poll, why would you announce it on a page where nobody would notice the change unless they visited it?

Tangerineduel complained that we're "working the collage thing to death". Well, I think that if any character or species changes over the course of the series, we should maintain complete accuracy by placing their old appearance alongside their current version. I mean, the CyberMondasians changed drastically over the years, but there's only one image of them on their page. Please forgive me for trying to be completely accurate.

Finally: does banning someone erase all of their badges from their inventory? What's up with that? --Patrick Watt talk to me 16:00, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Dalek infobox
Please review the current state of Talk:Dalek and give your opinions, here under this message, of the pictures being suggested. The collage idea has failed, but you should like that we're moving towards a 60s Dalek design. 06:31: Sat 17 Dec 2011  Well, first off: Here's a little thing to put on the "New Dalek Paradigm" page:

According to Steven Moffat, the old models are still serving as the drones, whereas the New ones are serving as an officer class.I read this on a blog site, but they cited their source as being the "Doctor Who Brilliant Book 2011". If that doesn't satisfy you, the assertion is further corroborated in The Wedding of River Song, where one of Amy's drawings clearly shows an RTD Dalek sporting the "Drone" color scheme scene in VOTD, clearly implying that it will be replacing the red VOTD Drone.

And, for the record, I also created a new collage image that might make people feel a little bit better about the idea. I know that you voted against it already, but it's still worth a look. I'd show it to you, but.... you know... :*-(

Speaking of looks, an artist on DeviantArt came up with an idea for the way they SHOULD have done the the New Dalek Paradigm (notice the more Dalek-y neck rings and the lack of the enormous rear end). Just go to DeviantArt and type "a New Dalek Paradigm" in the search bar and click on the first result. That is, if you care at all..

Finally, I checked the web, and the opinions regarding the "Mighty Morphin' Dalek Rangers" is almost univerally negative. In fact, there is a group on Facebook titled SAVE THE DALEKS PETITION! 10,000 people AGAINST the 2010 Dalek redesign!! There are currently 1,578 members.

As for your message, I'll need you to explain it further for me to understand.

Please give me feedback on my many discoveries as soon as possible.

Welcome to Perma-Ban®
Your work is done here. You were warned upthread not to violate T:SOCK. Nevertheless, User:Dr. Anonymous1 claimed to be "your father" on a "family computer". As that's a routine excuse given by sock puppet users, you are deemed to be Dr. Anonymous1, or at least to have access to that account, and are now permanently banned, as is proscribed by T:SOCK. 19:36: Sun 18 Dec 2011 21:11: Tue 20 Dec 2011