User talk:Tangerineduel

Aberystwyth
Sorry if my changes caused confusion, but it does get a tad confusing. In the episode, the flyer clearly states Aberystwyth University, hence the page being named Aberystwyth university. I'm assuming thats what you wanted to know, so if the following confuses you, just ignore it and remember that it is "Aberystwyth University". (I've just ordered the season one boxset and will add screenshots when it arrives)

At the time the episode was originally aired however, the official name was the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, but was generally shortened to Aberystwyth University. The producers presumably heard it being referred to as Aberystwyth University, and just hadn't realised it was not the university's official name.

Still with me?

Then, during the year between the time that the episode was aired, and the episode was set (thanks to the one year gap established in the new Who season 1) the University became independent from the university of wales, and thefore changed its name from The University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Aberystwyth university. This change in name therefore effectively nullifies the producers mistake, as the name is now correct, given that the episode is set after the name change.

I hope this makes things understandable, and again I apologise for confusing the issue. I really enjoyed my time at Aberystwyth, and in an effort to make the relevant pages, may have got slightly ahead of myself.
 * Geek Mythology 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Briefly
Just wanted to compliment you on this Wiki. It's one of the best I've seen, and the only one outside of Wikipedia I use regularly. (Memory Alpha is a distant second, but it's far too cluttered.) Monkey with a Gun 05:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts on a potential bit of major deleting
A few months back we shared a rant over the inability of some contributors to spell. I've also noticed of late many entries under "Myths" and the errors sections that seem to be stream-of-consciousness comments with no punctuation, no captialization ... and of course bad spelling. I haven't bothered to look at who might be putting these in but I bet they'll be anonymous IPs. I think based upon the way these things have been added, they should be considered suspect and removed from the articles. I've already removed a few that have been patently dubious or just outright wrong (I can't remember the detail but in one case someone added one of these sloppy notes to the Discontinuity section for an episode, pointing out something that was clearly stated throughout the episode. It's almost as if they were EUI - editing under the influence). I don't want to start pulling out stuff willy nilly without checking with someone first so I wonder what your thoughts are on this. Or should we just correct the spelling and capitalization and add periods, etc. and let things stand? (On a related note, if IPs are the cause of some of these problems, maybe Tardis should follow the lead of the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and restrict edits to registered users?) 23skidoo 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For an example of what I'm talking about, please see The Deadly Assassin. Check the edit marked "delete useless" in the history and see what I removed. There is in fact a registered user attached to this, Assassin of Death, though I've yet to link him/her to the other edits I'm referring to above. I checked the contributions and they appear to be a mix of properly formatted additions, and stuff like what I deleted. 23skidoo 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, when I see something like this, first I see if I can figure out what they were trying to say. If not, cut. After that, if it's a valid point, I try to clean it up. If it's just pointless, I cut it.
 * I'd be against requiring edits only for registered users. Mainly because I got into this wiki as editing as an unregistered user. (Of course, depending on how you feel about my edits and my OCD, this could be a good thing or a bad thing.) Monkey with a Gun 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick comment on this reply: Also another thing I don't think we should have is retroactively applying continuity to the discontinuity section should also be removed. That is calling out an old story as having incorrect elements because of a newer story. (I recently edited The Five Doctors which had some stuff in the discontinuity section relating to Last of the Time Lords. It's not really The Five Doctors' discontinuity, it's Last of the Time Lords'.)

I don't disagree with that, however I think it works if we use a newer story to cover off a potential discontinuity in an older story. For example, in Five Doctors there's the question as to why Susan would recognize the Cybermen. Based on what was known in continuity in 1983, she shouldn't have. However from 2009 perspective we now know she could have heard about the events of Doomsday or any of the other Cybermen invasions that happened at other points in history. So mentioning this in the rationale is fair game. I agree, however that if something established in an older story is contradicted by a later story, then that's mostly the fault of the later story (unless it's a key point of contention, such as a UNIT dating issue, or something like the "mystery Doctors" in Brain of Morbius). I think doing the retroactive game (which is often played with Star Trek, too) can be fun -- as long as we keep the order of things proper. 23skidoo 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Don't worry. I wasn't going through all the profiles. I don't have the time! Just ones where I've used quotes, and someone else has come along afterwards and changed them to italics. (For some reason, it's usually Doug who does it...) -- solar penguin/(talk)/(contribs) 16:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection project page
I just read the page you created regarding page protection. Good work. If I might make a suggestion, when pages are protected on the main Wikipedia, the template that indicates same usually indicates that if someone wishes to add content but cannot, that they place a request on the article's discussion page, at which point a user not affected by the block can decide whether to add the information. It might not hurt to add such a statement to either the tag you created, or the explanation page. Otherwise I could imagine you might end up getting talk page messages from IPs of good faith (or not-so-good faith) who want to add stuff. If someone goes through the trouble of posting such a request, it probably would increase confidence that the information is valid, as opposed to just a random edit/rumor. 23skidoo 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandel on my talk page
Hey sorry to inconvience you with such a trivial matter but could you do something about a non registered user. I keep deleting the message about reverting and have left a message on thier talk page but I dont think they get the message

Sorry for the inconvience and Thank you for taking the time to read this

Bigshowbower 07:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, what an unfriendly place this is. Have you even looked at User:Bigshowbower's history of awful edits, random reversions and nasty talk page comments, or did you just take her word for it? 91.85.160.75 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So you just took her word for it, despite the random reversions of good content? So this wiki doesn't like IP editors, despite that being a fundamental part of what wikis are about? 91.85.160.75 11:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another possible notice box idea
I just added a small disclaimer to the "real world" section of the 2009 article here. I think it's worth noting this considering some events and dates do change. I think having a real world chronology is quite important though - and I think the day-by-day chronology for earlier years is one of the best things about this wiki. I think having just the bold line of text is OK, but if you think a boxed notice would look better (or if in fact one exists), please feel free to replace it. Ideally this notice should be added to all real world calendar date sections (2010, 2011, etc) and of course removed when the year in question has ended. What do you think? 23skidoo 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I'll go ahead and add that one line at least for the 2010 and maybe 2011 articles when I have the chance (I don't see the need to do 2012 as from that point and beyond it's pretty much guesswork anyway - within reason, of course!). Incidentally, I've now cut ties to Wikipedia pretty much for good. I've been weaning myself off that project ever since the atmosphere over there got too unpleasant and I saw the writing on the wall that pop-culture-based articles were not long for this world (i.e. individual articles on DW episodes, for example). I was doing some editing on the sly and got slapped down for adding some material to a TV show article based upon episodes of a particular series (not Doctor Who), but because it wasn't published in some book somewhere they wouldn't allow it and were rather snarky in their responses. Not saying I agree 100% with every call for sources on this project, and looking at things like the discussion on The Doctor and the Enterprise there are some users who don't believe the Tardis Wikia should be "inclusive", but you guys are far more even-handed about it from what I've seen than the tin gods at Wikipedia. Pardon the digression - just had to rant a little! 23skidoo 12:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Please come to the forum thread in which a radical proposal has been made to change infoboxes and give your views. Thanks!  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  17:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection request
I think you probably should put Eleventh Doctor and Series 5 (Doctor Who) into protection mode, as people are starting to add rubbish, including posting tabloid gossip as fact, as well as posting things in the wrong place, like rumors regarding upcoming plotlines in the Eleventh Doctor article, etc. And once again so few of these "editors" seem to possess knowledge of English-language spelling and the basic function of a shift key for captialization. Rubbish spelled correctly is still rubbish but at least it's spelled correctly! 23skidoo 02:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Marnal
Hi, I was just wondering if you had read EDA: The Gallifrey Chronicles. If you have, could you take a look at the Marnal article? Most of it was written by me, but I haven't actually read the novel and got my information from the Internet. I just wanted to see if anyone who has actually read the book could confirm the information in the article. Thanks.--The Traveller 19:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hey someone has deleted all the stuff on the Weeping Angel page and replaced it with spam.--Iluvprimeval 09:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Canon
Thanks for pointing that out. No offence intended, I had not heard of the Darkel reference before and simply used the same phrasing as was used on that page (which also references the Flavia theory - again, that's a new one to me) since I didn't see a reference to any particular story in any media where that name was used. Spreee 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Spreee

You are KIDDING me
I'm just. . . flabbergasted. You're an admin here, right? And yet you're calling for a revote on an element of something where consensus was properly sought and obtained? This is the thanks that the administration of this wiki gives a user for following proper procedures, and even indulged days of post-vote conversation that, strictly, weren't necessary. I'm sorry it's come to such blunt language, but I don't know what other reaction you could have expected from me: you are a sore loser. Your actions are deleterious to this community, as they set a dangerous precedent. They suggest any time a user is unhappy with a particular part of a decision, all they have to do is start a side-vote on that particular issue. Thus you've opened up the door to the piecemeal devaluation of the consensus process. Since there are, in fact, no stated rules governing admins here, I'm forced to quote from Wikipedia: Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.  So that leaves us with two questions. Does your taking this action mean that it is not, in fact, the policy of this wiki to build consensus? Or does it mean that you have willfully violated that concept in order to "win" an argument?  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  16:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)