User talk:Tangerineduel


 * For the archived portion of this talk page see User talk:Tangerineduel/Archive - Wiki formatting
 * Please leave new edits at the bottom of the page''

Admin Request
Hi, please see Tardis:User rights‎ here where I have requested admin rights and state your opinion. I won't be offended if you oppose and will continue to edit so no worries about that. Also, if you could put a link in the sitenotice to tell other users about it too as this will show up for all active users. Thanks, 15:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I will strive to improve myself until you can consider me to be a good admin. 17:17, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Delton Menace
Hi. I would like to report a vandalism by the User:Delton Menace. He removed all the external links, continuity, story notes and most of the rumours from the page The Pandorica Opens.

DBuddy 01:21, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't vandalism. We're trying to clean up the page of "rumours" which are actually spoilers/facts, spoilers in that are in the wrong places and anything that is repetitive. The page is looking a lot better than it was. The Thirteenth Doctor 08:43, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have protected Daleks and The Doctors TARDIS. I was going to edit them but i do not have the right to. So could you add the picture of the piece of the tardis door shown in Cold Blood and write about the incoming explosion of the tardis. and also insert the pictures of the daleks in the pandorica opens onto The Daleks article. Lots of thanks SpaceLord

Delete Template
I have added in an extra optional parameter so that you can add your reason into the template. See the sandbox for an example and Template talk:Proposed deletion for the discussion and reasoning behind it. 11:33, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing I am happiest with is that if you leave out the parameter, it doesn't leave a space and looks like the normal template too. 14:07, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup Template
Ok. It is done. At the moment, it says: It needs to be cleaned up in these sections: as I couldn't think of anything better but if you can think of something better, feel free to change it. 16:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops. Sorry, I thought it was you who left my the message. I don't know why. Anyway, it needs rewording I know but can you think of anything better? 16:52, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I was saying about it was that, for example, on River Song's page, it was in need of a clean-up. But it didn't need it for one section, it needed it in the the whole thing, but most people wouldn't know that the cleanup needed all spoilers removed. If we add this section to the cleanup template, it doesn't always need to be used, but it is there for necessary times when specifics need to be removed such as the spoilers on River's page. I've cleaned her page up since asking for the template to be modified, but I still think it will be useful for the future. The Thirteenth Doctor 17:08, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

DarthRishda
This user verbally assaulted me on my talk page. Can you please have a word with him. Thank-you. --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:28, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just noticed he has been warned about this kind of thing before. He may need a block. The Thirteenth Doctor 17:29, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * He definitely needs a block, he has now just verbally abused SolarDragon. --The Thirteenth Doctor 20:23, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * And me again. --The Thirteenth Doctor 20:41, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would definitely suggest a block for him. He has been personal attacking users with F***ing whore, including me and 13th Doctor. 11:50, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Patroller
I know that some people have requested to become Admins on the wiki, but I don't think I'd like that level of control. On Heroes Wiki we have this thing called patrollers, they look through as many edits as they can and basically patrol them and make sure they are acceptable for the wiki, if not, undoing them. Is there something similar on this wiki... I'm not sure if that's what a "sysop" is? Could you help? The Thirteenth Doctor 22:32, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what is considered a "rollback" user in general. -- sulfur 22:49, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Unused Files deletion
Hi, you do know you can get a bot with admin rights to delete all unused files? If you give my bot admin rights, I would do it, or you could always give them to CzechBot and ask him. Or, delete them all manually. Your choice. 13:58, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa. I really don't think it's wise to have a bot deleting unused files. There are tons of pictures which are currently unused but which might be used in future, for example File:CiaranThompson.jpg is just waiting for the article to be written.  I regularly upload pics without necessarily using them right away, and a bot won't be able to tell which are good to keep and which aren't.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  02:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Pages
I agree with you that i should reply here, rather than the Tardis:User rights page. So I have gone though my edits and picked out the pages that I am most proud of and what I think shows my most creative skills.

The pages which I am proud of are: my heavy edits to the Series 3 (Torchwood) page, before it was released. On this page I turned it into a proper episode pages, and sorted out all the headings and put the correct information under them. I am partially proud of turning the Series 5 (Doctor Who) page into a proper series page where as before it had only the cast and rumours. I turned it from that into a proper series pages, and thinned out the rumours and adding the correct headings, and it has since then grown to what it is now. Thirdly, I am proud of the pages where I have been involved with the removing of the discontinuity and the adding of production errors, which I myself brought up the subject again. I am also proud of the Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles page, which I created, and even with your heavy edits to it, I feel that some on my work I did while creating it is still there, and I feel that by creating that, I helped with making this wiki even better. Lastly, I am proud of the navigation templates I have created, especially the Time Lord stories, Torchwood Novels and Audio and Christmas specials

The pages which I feel show my creative skills are: Many of the actor pages I have created and also my edits to pages that have the wrong layout. Many of these are the audio adventures, and I have recognised this and changed them to how they should be laid out, and put the information under the correct headings on when they are not. Many audio adventures have wrong or incorrect headings on them, and I have gone though some some them and changed them to how the manual of style says they should be laid out. I am also proud of my early edits to the 2009 Specials (Doctor Who) page, it was here I spend most of my early edits, as I joined this wiki just prior to Planet of the Dead aired, i know I have had some daft edits with them, but now fell I am a more experienced user. Thanks. Mini-mitch 17:!0, June 19 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a three pages that I feel will show you my creative skill (all in-universe): They are one of my edits to the Alonso Frame page, linked to my edit version here - |here. Secondly, my edit to the Lucy Saxon page, showing my edits here - |here. Thirdly, is my lastest edit to Pete Tyler (Pete's World) here -.


 * I will also take what you said about Panda into account. Cheers :) Mini-mitch 17:00, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Help Please
Hello, I don't know if you can help me or not, because I'm not actually a member of this wiki, but I recently tried to create myself an account (several times), and this message kept popping up: . I was just wondering what it meant and whether I'll be able to create an account or not? Thank you in advance, 212.183.140.3 20:25, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Face Tendril
Can you help me move the Multi-Form back to Face Tendril. Face Tendril is the correct name and is even acknowledged by the BBC Doctor Who website as the species name. Multi form is just another name that it is refered to. Thanks -- Michael Downey 20:41, June 19, 2010 (UTC).

The Pandorica Opens
I draw your attention to Talk:The Pandorica Opens (TV story). When the bot gets finished checking every damned page in mainspace, I'll need you to move The Pandorica Opens (Painting) to The Pandorica Opens.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  02:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Well, it appears you've already made the switch before the bot finished its work.  The switch stopped the bot in its duties, so I've got to go back and figure out where precisely it got to.  There's a chance that the automatic switch won't ultimately be as complete as I would've liked, but I did get the vast majority of them before you made the switch.  For some reason, there's a "ghost image" hanging around of linkage to several un-related stories (thanks to the link being in a template), but these are "false" links.  Probably just have to wait a few days for the system to adjust.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  15:09, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that big a deal. I just wanted to tell you why we might still have a few (<30) stragglers.  The job went from just saying "Okay, look at everything in Category:Time-Space Visualiser to having to figure out which individual categories the stragglers are in.  Basically the job isn't really for a bot anymore — it's down to a manageable hand-edit job, which, frankly, I just don't want to do — but I'll keep going for a bit and let you know when I've gotten to the point where I'm, rather lazily, over it.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  15:19, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay the bot's work is done. And I don't mean by that, "I'm done working with the bot on this issue."  I mean, it's actually finished.  There are a ton (>50) of "ghost links" still persisting, but when you actually go to the articles, they are properly linked.  These links will hopefully fall away after a while.  The only problem I have is that I don't actually remember what the legitimate links to the painting were.  I think there were only a few, but the premature deletion of The Pandorica Opens (Painting) makes it harder to assess what might have originally been there.  The only links persisting there are to pages not in mainspace.  I guess I could go through the creating editor's contribution history but — oh, what the hell, I'll do that and hope that's all that should be legitimately linked to the painting at present.  Anyway, job done.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  17:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, CzechOut, you missed a few, specifically the ones that used the DW and DW 2 templates. There were a couple of other links you missed for some reason.  Not sure how, but they're all fixed.  I also forced refreshes on all of the other pages to clean up the cached links too. -- sulfur 17:55, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Slight, related, followup. The DW template does something we used to do on Memory Alpha with the #ifexist calls.  We found that the use of that template call actually made the Wiki software think that the link did exist for "what links here" and the "most wanted" pages.  Just fyi. -- sulfur 18:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, of course. Totally forgot about DW. Thanks for catchin' that.   So did you guys find a fix to the "what links here" and "most wanted' false links?   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  21:27, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. We moved all episodes to "XXX (episode)", and had redirects pointing there when there was no in-universe article to put there. Not the prettiest, but it works. -- sulfur 21:58, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

User:94.101.164.1
This IP has been vandalising and needs to be blocked. The Thirteenth Doctor 11:34, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

admin
how did you become an ADMIN =[Flabadof23 15:34, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

User Adiliqbal
You need to ban User:Adiliqbal over use of pornographic pictures on the pages of Rose Tyler and Martha Jones. The quicker, the better! He is still modifying pages... I can't stay here forever. --4me 17:25, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Proper syntax for titles now possible
I direct your attention to Forum:Italics or Quotation marks? for a lovely new round of discussion about what must surely be one of your favorite topics. :-)  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  21:47, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Archiving talk page
Yes please do, its not something I have bothered about in the past, I've just deleted the comments. I would prefer to archive it now, as the page had useful information on it, and comments which I will refer to in the future Mini-mitch, 16:39, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who Answers
Hi, I was just wondering whether you could provide a link to Doctor Who Answers wiki on the other Doctor Who wikis template on the main page? We have a link to this wiki in our sidebar. You could use our logo in it if you wish but hopefully soon, we will get a new one to replace it with anyway as I have requested one. Anyway, thanks in advance, 20:29, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, done. I just wanted to check it with you before I went ahead and did it. 09:08, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Problem reports
Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep that in mind for future. Tardis1963 22:00, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Community involvement with the italics/quotes issue
I obviously value discussions and consensus decision-making too. That's why I use the fora and talk pages with great frequency. You keep making the point of seeking discussion as if it's something I'm not doing. But is that fair? We're talking about a change that I clearly want to make, that I have the tools to make with relative ease, and about which I actually don't think there is any logical resistance. To me, this is like arguing over whether the sky is blue. And yet. . I've made no substantive moves on the matter in the 18 months the discussion has been open. How much more dedicated do you want me to be to using the fora? Even by our standards, this discussion has been ongoing, unresolved, for a ridiculously long time. Let's face it, if you were on board with this idea, you wouldn't be behaving so cautiously. And reluctance and caution are both fine things. But please don't shade the issue as if I'm trying to do something improper by seeking closure on an 18-month-old discussion. Most of my major actions on this wiki have only been made after at least some period of discussion on the fora or talk pages.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  06:46, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a 18-month discussion and not just two spurts of activity. It's significant that no one else has posted in that time.  I think it indicates that they don't care, and that they want us to settle the matter.  You can't make people interested enough in a topic that they'll post.  Some things attract attention; some things don't.  You can't force people to use the fora.  If you wanna try the canvassing thing, cool.  For me, canvassing has produced mixed results in the past, but what the heck.  Again, though, let's not make this out to be a question of failing to involve the community.  That's wholly unfair.  This topic has been out there, and several times at the top of the list of topics at the Panopticon.  It's not like this has been buried on your talk page.  People have read it, and chosen to ignore it, just like they did the K9 discussion.  Arguing the finer points of punctuation isn't gonna set the world on fire, but somebody has to bring it up and take a stand on it.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  07:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad you've gotten more input at the forum thread, but I do think the precise language you've used to drive people there was a little less than neutral. Instead of saying something bland  like, "Could you please come to this forum thread and give your opinion", you went further than I would and said, "I'm not comfortable with . . . " — which kinda suggests that something "fishy" was going on.  People will have naturally gone to that page with greater suspicion than was necessary.  I'm not angry or anything. I don't think you were actually trying to "load" the discussion with people "on your side". And I absolutely understand what you were trying to say in the full sentence.  You were saying that you were uncomfortable with just two people having the discussion, which is a perfectly valid point.


 * But I do think some people might have focused merely on the fact that you said you were uncomfortable rather than parsing the whole sentence. And as you're viewed as the senior admin who tends to "close" these discussions, such word choice can have a devastating effect upon genuine conversation.  It's a bit like one's boss saying, "I'm uncomfortable; aren't you uncomfortable, too?"  And that feeling of discomfort could be then applied to the thing being proposed, especially as you are uncomfortable with the proposal.  Again, I'm not suggesting intentionality or anything like that, but that's a subliminal vibe that's possible to infer.  It's so important to consensus building that people be alerted to a discussion in as neutral a way as possible, as is suggested at the Wikipedia guidelines on canvassing.  In the interests of avoiding anything like this in the future, I have therefore brought over a simplified version of Please see from Wikipedia.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  20:25, June 24, 2010 (UTC)