User talk:Sinefirt

'''Welcome to the Sinefirt Thanks for your edits at Kaarsh! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool! We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first. British English, please We generally use British English round these parts, so if you're American, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card. Spoilers aren't cool We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details. Other useful stuff Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:
 * the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
 * our Manual of Style
 * our image use policy
 * our user page policy
 * a list of people whose job it is to help you

If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! —  you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this: ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on my talk page. -- Tangerineduel (Talk) 10:37, 30 December 2011

Block
Heya :) Hate to do this to you so early in your editing career with us, but I need to blcok you for a day to conduct a review of your editing.   Don't worry, it's not going to last much longer.  However, I've been alerted to some irregularities in your editing, and I need to stop you from editing for a bit so I can advise you how best to proceed with us.  My preliminary research indicates that you have a tendency to just move pages without consultation to ongoing community discussions.  But I'll be able to tell you more later.  Thanks for your edits with us; hopefully this early review of your work will help you make even better edits here!  05:28: Sun 08 Jan 2012

Review details
Hi, I've had to rollback and revert and series of edits and page moves you've done recently. As CzechOut has said above, they all appear to have been done without discussion on the article's talk pages or in the Forum.

Here's a brief explanation of some of the pages I've reverted/rolled back and why.

On some pages you've mostly missed the narrative in terms of naming. The narrative gives us the information to name the articles correctly, often it's even written in the article (though sometimes you need to have read/heard/seen the source). The T:DAB policy is there for conflicts that arise from articles that have the same name. From what I can see you've sort of employed it as a one size fits all to the articles.

A series of edits you've made to various Doctor articles. You added Category:Incarnations of the Doctor to many articles which are already sub-categories of that category (meaning they're already in that category).

The Doctor (Good Companions), the introduction says it all, it's one of the Eighth Doctor's future incarnations. It does not say anywhere that it's his next incarnation.

The Master (The Curse of Fatal Death) I've moved back as this article's title was discussed on the article's talk page.

For The Doctor (Who's Who?) this article states he had no knowledge of the TARDIS and was evidently human, which means he's got the name "the Doctor", but couldn't be the "Third Doctor".

I really encourage you to have a look around the wiki, see the process of how we've named articles, have a look on the talk pages of articles that have conjectural names or ones that you think are mis-named (there may have already been a discussion). Or as I've said above start a topic in the forums, if you think this issue an issue you've found is too wide to be covered on one article page. Thanks, any questions feel free to leave them on my talk page and I'll try to help. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:32, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of good specifics there from Tangerineduel about why you were blocked and why a lot of what you've done so far has been reverted. Here are some of the things I've discovered:
 * Your name changes on the various Master pages can't be allowed to stand, at the moment, simply because we've got an ongoing discussion about what to do with these articles. It started at Forum:The Master and has continued on to Forum:The Master - 1 article.  As you've discovered, the situation with these articles is untenable.  They're named awkwardly, and in a way which basically ignores our standard disambiguation policy.  Exceptions are possible, of course, but the community needs to agree on them. And there's a legitimate open question of whether we should have separate articles at all.  Yes, we do encourage our editors to "be bold", as the old Wikipedia expression goes, but you shouldn't be so bold as to trample on community discussions.  I will say that I did find your combination of The Master (Final Frontier) and  The Master (Bruce) articles intriguing, and think that it's further evidence of why we might be better off with only an article at The Master.  Because of your interesting rewrites, I very much encourage you to let your views be known at forum:The Master - 1 article.
 * Your renaming of The Doctors (The Brain of Morbius) was reverted because you just changed the name and removed the rename tag.  Again, you can't just make changes when there's a discussion ongoing.  These top-of-the-page maintenance messages — you know, ones like delete, merge, rename and the like — can't just be removed by non-admin without discussion.  (Since admin have to move discussions to conclusion, they often have to act on the proposal being made in the tag.  But even admin should participate in the discussion, unless the case is fairly non-controversial.) This article's name was far from cut-and-dried, as talk:The Doctors (The Brain of Morbius) is awash with protests about its contents.  Generally, if you see a tag at the top of an article that says "talk about it" anywhere in its text, you should first go to the talk page and, well, talk about it.
 * As a general rule, you probably don't want to be moving any page, except for those that:
 * are new; and
 * are created by you
 * This is because you will be aware of the links you have made to it, and can therefore quickly change all the links. If you just move a page without considering the existing links, you're kinda just making a mess that other people have to clean up.  It is generally better to ask me to move pages for you. The reason you want to ask me is because I have a bot which can change all the links in a snap.  Note the requests that are at my user talk page, asking for just this sort of switchover.


 * Remember, if all you do is change the name of the article, you haven't really changed the links as they appear throughout the wiki. And that's (usually) a kind of pointless change.  If a name is wrong on the title of an article, we want it to be changed wherever it appears on the wiki. We don't just want links to a redirect.


 * Consider this. Someone has titled an article Jane Smith, but her name is actually Jane Smythe.  If we don't change all the links, then we'll have the incorrect name all over the wiki, leading our readers to wonder what the correct name is.


 * As Tangerineduel has pointed out, please be conscious of the structure of our category tree. Except for those categories that are currently engaged in the Game of Rassilon, you don't want to put an article in a parent category, if it's already in a child category.  For instance, let's imagine you had a page for a boa constrictor.  You would want to put that page into category:snakes.  But you wouldn't put it into category:reptiles, as well — because category:snakes itself is in category:reptiles.  Why does this matter?  Well, it makes routine maintenance of the database more difficult because it creates recursion.  There are enough pockets of recursion caused by those categories involved in the Game of Rassilon.  We don't need to make more.
 * You do want to be careful about applying "companion" categories to people. We've had long debates (see the behind the scenes section of companion for links to threads) about who counts and who doesn't.  If a person doesn't appear on companions of the Sixth Doctor, you should probably ask a question first at forum:reference desk as to whether it'd be okay to consider that character as a companion.   I'm not altogether sure, for instance, you can justify Sabalom Glitz as a companion of the Sixth Doctor.
 * Also, avoid using categories to make controversial points. Categories are what are used by the bot to perform hundreds of thousands of small edits.  Certain things are expected by the bot, and by me as the operator of the bot.  Sometimes I perform actions on [Number] Doctor companions categories. I need to sort of know what's in that category.  I'm not going to expect, for instance, that K9 Mark III is in category:Tenth Doctor companions.  Or that Paul McGann is in category:Actors who portrayed the Master.  I'm not at all saying that you have to report every category change to me.  That would be ridiculous.  But you don't want to overreach with categories and use them to say something with them. The point of a category is organisation.  It's not really to say something the article doesn't.  If you tried to establish in the Paul McGann article that he actually played the Master, it'd probably be struck down fairly quickly.  Far as I know, he doesn't actually play the Master anyway; Roberts' face is merely superimposed on his.  Understand that I do want you to use and have fun with categories.  But if you get to a point where you think, "Actually, this is kinda debatable", don't use that category.  Categories should only be for really solid facts.  Paul McGann absolutely is one of those category:actors who appeared in Sea of Souls.  He is not someone who unambiguously played the Master.
 * To answer your question at talk:Twelfth Doctor, redirections on articles titled [Number] Doctor are flatly disallowed, as implied by T:DOCTORS. Such articles should only be the actual, proper incarnation of the Doctor.  Obviously we're going to need Twelfth Doctor by 2014-ish, so we're not goin to allow its usage prior to our first encountered with the "real" number 12.
 * Please note that T:HEAD SC requires you to use sentence case, not title case, in headers. That is, headers must be   not  .  I noticed on a few occasions you seemed to want to introduce title case, as at Ninth Doctor, where you used "Post-Regeneration" instead of "Post-regeneration" and "Ear;u Adventures" instead of "Early adventures".  Why is this tiny detail important? See T:HEAD LINK.


 * And with all that said, I now remove your block. I hope that you'll take my and Tangerineduel's comments constructively.  We absolutely do want you here editing with us.  If you have any questions, please don't be a stranger!   00:50: Mon 09 Jan 2012

Eleventh Doctor
I'll repeat Tybort's question from the edit summary, as it's one I asked myself when I read your edit summary; what official timeline? I noticed you added this http://www.eyespider.freeserve.co.uk/drwho/compleat.html web address to the page, it's in no way an official timeline or even a citable source on in-universe pages.

Also please don't use the visual editor it introduces a bucket load of HTML.

Please also note non-narrative information must be contained to the behind the scenes sections of in universe articles see Tardis:Canon policy for more info. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:11, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Edits reverted at Third Doctor
Please note that nothing from BBV can be placed into an article about any character for which BBV did not enjoy legal use of the copyright. This basically means that nothing in a BBV production has anything to do with the Doctor or the Master, even if that's wha the narrative seems to be implying. We have a very broad church here, but we draw the line at unlicensed usage of characters and situations. BBV, in general, only had licenses from the writers who owned copyright, and not the BBC. The BBC fully owns the Doctor and the Master, so therefore anything written about the Doctor and the Master in a non-BBC production can't be used in in-universe article.s 19:55: Mon 16 Jan 2012

Species and enemies
Outside of the main species like the Daleks and Cybermen it should be specific people who are enemies placed in X Doctor enemies. Not whole species. The Monoids and the Visians for instance is based on one encounter with the Doctor. That's enough to state that that particular individual of that species is an enemy of the Doctor if they've shown direct conflict, but not the whole species. That's like saying because Van Statten locked up the Doctor and he's human that all humans are an enemy of the Doctor. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:50, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Categories
Just curious, have you seen the stories that you're adding categories to?

As while the characters might be not the main cast, and may be in opposition to the Doctor and co, that doesn't by default make them enemies of the Doctor. Or on the flip side, just because they're not trying to kill the Doctor doesn't make them an ally. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:46, January 17, 2012 (UTC)