User talk:Ghastly9090

Admin
To be an admin you need to understand the policies, procedures and workings of this wiki. You also need to have a good working knowledge of Doctor Who and the Doctor Who universe. A lengthy edit history is also required as when a serious request to be an admin is made the editor's edit history is looked through by other admins to determine if the editor has the skills necessary to be an admin on this wiki. At this time I can't really consider your request to be an admin as you have a far too low edit count to be able to judge your skills as an editor.

Most duties an admin carries out can be done by a regular editors on this wiki. If you're looking for a direction to begin there is the Tardis:To Do List, see also the Tardis:Help page for our policies and other useful pages for this site.

Also, just on a side note, when uploading images please select a copyright tag from the licensing drop down box, in the case of the image of a Doctor Who Magazine that you recently uploaded you would have needed to clicked the licensing menu box, and scroll down to 'Magazines' and select 'Doctor Who Magazine covers', this adds a copyright tag for Doctor Who Magazine covers. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:02, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article sections
Please do not add puns as titles for sections or other to articles. These have no place in the article and will be removed. Thank-you. The Thirteenth Doctor 15:11, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Stuff
In terms of being an admin, read Tangerineduel's comments above. When you've been around for a few months, then you can start to think about becoming an administrator.

For the upcoming Christmas special, there has been no title announced as yet, and until the episode is just about to air (as in, same day), an article will not be created for it. This is due to the policies of the wiki. -- sulfur 23:14, July 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * As I and sulfur have said about being an admin.
 * In more specific terms with regards to you wishing to be an admin just to create a Christmas special article, as there is no confirmable information, such as a title there is very little information.
 * However you can still be a valuable editor on this wiki, many of the duties accomplished by an admin can be done by regular users.
 * Also please remember to cite a source when adding information, such as your recent edit to the Series 6 page. While you have mentioned that the 'Doctor Who website' showed it you did not link to any article so others may check the information.
 * Please also remember that in-universe articles need to be written from an in-universe perspective (not as you did in this edit to the Heart of the TARDIS article. As I said above knowing our Tardis:Manual of Style and looking through the Tardis:Help pages with the various policies and such listed there will be a assistance in becoming a good editor. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 13:59, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Eighth Doctor
I'm going to use your recent edits to the Eighth Doctor's page to explain a few things to you. Please don't add information from audio dramas etc. that have not yet aired, these are classed as spoilers. Plus, all you did was link to the page, no explanation as to what the section was to be about. If you don't have any information, don't create a new section. Simply linking to the drama articles makes the page out of universe. Also, any new information goes in it's chronological place on the Doctor's page, ie. they can't take place after his regeneration. Thanks. The Thirteenth Doctor 11:07, July 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to apologise. Just take note of it and remember it in future. The Thirteenth Doctor 12:59, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

== Rumours ==

Please do not add rumours without sources. This is seen as vandalism. Looking at your talk page, I would strongly suggest you have a read at the policies, otherwise you may be listed as a vandal. The Thirteenth Doctor 19:50, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

It was the rumour that Omega would return on the series 6 page. Fan based rumours do not belong there, only rumours supported by an outside source. Perhaps I should not have said "this is seen as vandalism" but this could be seen as vandalism if repeated continually. Sorry for not being clear enough. And I do suggest that you have a read through the policies as I know they are good faith edits and you are generally a good editor, but continuing to breach policies, like the above messages could end up with a block. If you read through the policies, you'll know what not to do and you'll remove the risk of accidentally getting a block. The Thirteenth Doctor 17:36, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Adventure Games
To whichever admin is telling me off

I'm sorry if I made a mistake on the adventure games page because i can't remeber the links but mabye you could look into it and find them. The text that i left on the page is 100% true. I got the underwater one from a magazine in WH Smiths and I got the Tardis one from a reliable source within the adventure game crew. Ghastly9090 18:26, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources
Hey. When you are citing the sources, if you want the little number you use   instead of using  [url here] . --The Thirteenth Doctor 11:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Puzzle pieces and ref tags
If what you're talking about is what I think you're talking about, it's what The Thirteenth Doctor has said above. The "puzzle piece" you mentioned means an external link out, but on real world pages sources are cited using the method The Thirteenth Doctor describes above and that is visible throughout the Series 6 page. You links appear as they do because they're not ref tagged. --Tangerineduel 13:24, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * You do as it described by The Thirteenth Doctor above, you put your source as follows or look around the Series 6 page where it's done on practically all the sources except the ones you've added. --Tangerineduel 08:07, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

SJA
Yeah, it's perfectly fine as far as I can tell. The Thirteenth Doctor 17:31, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes
I use the following code, then fill in with the appropriate info.

Delete tag
Please leave the content of a page that has a delete tag on it. Just because the tag is there does not mean the content should be removed users and admins need to judge the content and it makes for an extra step to go into the page's history and go through successive edits to check the page's content prior to the removal of the content. --Tangerineduel 17:19, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

SJA
Please stop adding that Luke and K9 are leaving the show completely in the Nightmare Man. All that has been said is that they are going to university, not that they are going and not coming back. I clearly stated that in the edit summary when I removed it. The Thirteenth Doctor 10:56, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Info box on you User page
To get the info box on your User page, feel free to copy the template from my page (Go to edit, then copy the template - and don't click save) then just paste it on your page and edit it how you want. Mini-mitch 16:19, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
I'll actually place the infobox on your page, then you can fill it out yourself. The Thirteenth Doctor 15:29, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Ask User:Tangerineduel. He knows about all that sort of thing. Thanks--Skittles the hog 15:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Contents & Admin
Sean-Black's move to adminship is a bit before my time on this wiki, however, looking through the User rights log, Sean-Black's move from user to admin was made very early in this wiki's inception.

I can only guess at this point but Sean-Black is a current wikipedia admin and obviously also knowledgable about Doctor Who, and when setting up this wiki there were several things the original users who set up the wiki were learning quickly, and I would assume that Sean-Black as an admin on the English Wikipedia was of assistance in setting up the wiki. In the case of this particular user (and indeed the other users who were made admins around the same time) it was not the number of edits that they had contributed to the wiki (as the wiki was very much smaller than it currently is) but rather their skill with the mediawiki software and their knowledge of both Doctor Who and of dealing with users and vandalism within a wiki-environment.

As to Contents, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the 'Contents' that appears, for instance at the top of this page. It's automatically generated by having subheadings; anything contained within two or more of these; ==. You need more than one set of sub-headings and a page of some length to get the contents to generate. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 17:00, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Reply
I only put the page up for deletion, so please don't act like I deleted it. It would have been an admin that deleted it. If somebody did come onto this wiki, and tried to find out about Sarah Jane and her 'companions' they would more likely go to the Sarah Jane Adventures page. Mini-mitch 16:19, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another point which I made on the talk page. Template:Sarah Jane's gang exists. I don't think they've ever been called companions, but they were called a gang. --The Thirteenth Doctor 16:31, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers
Please stop adding spoilers. It is against the Manual of Style. The Thirteenth Doctor 22:09, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop adding spoilers to main pages. If you do so again, I will ask an admin to issue a warning. --The Thirteenth Doctor 15:58, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not add spaces to the 'The Vault of Secrets' infobox. Adding spaces / removing elements of infoboxes can cause conflicts within the infobox or article. --Tangerineduel 15:49, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Picture
Put. There you go, hope it helped.--Skittles the hog 16:18, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

SJA Stories - Protection
Partly it was to start with a clean slate with Death of the Doctor. The Vault of Secrets part 1 is broadcast today/tomorrow so there's not too much editing that's going on. --Tangerineduel 14:06, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. All future stories will also likely be handled like that as well. See Tardis:Spoiler policy for more information. --Tangerineduel 15:18, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm...we actually did that. See Forum:Premature page policies - again.
 * Wikipedia and this wiki consider polling isn't a substitute for a discussion, and what we had on the forum was a discussion, it involved users who frequently edit on this wiki.
 * The current policy is not a large difference from the policy we had before. Before the pages were fully create protected until before broadcast, this however created redlinks (which made people dream up increasingly odd alternate story names to create articles), now the pages are created and protected, meaning the links aren't red-linking, but they're still protected, as they were before. --Tangerineduel 16:11, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion was in the Forums, which is the place for wiki relevant discussions. It really isn't practical to put every discussion on the main page. The main page is designed to entice new users to explore the wiki. --Tangerineduel 12:25, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I said the main page is to entice people to explore the wiki, that is follow links on the main page to other pages and so on.
 * Polls don't involve people, they give the impression participation. There is no discussion involved in a poll. As you said "it makes them think that they have made an impact on what happens on the wiki." It makes them think that they have made an impact, but there is no actual impact without discussing the issue, as we did on the Forums, the place for such discussion.
 * On this matter, it was discussed in the forums and policy put in place. As I've said repeatedly the policy merely puts in place what was there before. Admins have routinely been fully protecting the titles of upcoming stories to prevent them from being created before they are broadcast. Any information relating to yet to be broadcast stories can be placed on that story's series article. --Tangerineduel 15:55, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers
Please do not add information from yet to be broadcast stories to any articles. These are considered "spoilers" in that it is information from a story that has not yet been broadcast, therefore should someone read it will have their experience of the story that information is from 'spoiled'. --Tangerineduel 15:17, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not the robot I was talking about, it was this and this after previously being warned several times. --The Thirteenth Doctor 15:35, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Poll
Please make sure you leave messages on my talk page and not one of my archived pages.

I agree with Tangerineduel. I don't think a poll is the best way to decide. Whist I think they are a great way to see what the majority says, they should not be used to settle decisions. It's the actual strength of the argument given that decides if it is one way or another, the pros versus the cons. So far, for editing pages before they air, there are more pros to locking it than cons.

Take, for example, if someone proposed that no IP ever be blocked again. If we had a poll, we could end up with 50 IPs voting that they will never be blocked, and only nine or ten users who say no. But the argument the users would put up would be stronger than the IPs, the main one being that if we never block them again, they can vandalise freely, which would sway the argument against the proposition.

If you think different, go on the the forum page and state your opinions, they will be considered, discussed, then if your argument is strong enough, it will be changed. However, you would need to be able to give a considerable number of cons. --The Thirteenth Doctor 15:59, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pros and cons are not people. They are the positives and negatives of doing something. Locking the page brings up some on both sides as such. Pros: Silly rumours are not added. Numerous and pointless edits are not added. Fanon content is not added. Cons: People cannot edit.
 * Also, you didn't make it clear what you were arguing for on the page, and it seems to have come across as though you want to introduce polling. If it is about the unlocking of the pages, you need to make your own argument for keeping them unlocked, not ask others to do it for you as you have done. --The Thirteenth Doctor 16:07, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Forums / Polling etc
The original discussion concerning page protection I didn't get involved into till about 24 hours after it had begun. Rob T Firefly created the template that is currently being used and The Thirteenth Doctor and Rob T Firefly are the users who discussed the major elements. As an admin I set the templates up and the protection elements because I needed to do those parts. I've been editing on this wiki for some time, but I more often enact what is discussed in the forums, on occasion I will consult other admins and other regular users (often on the Forums) (or sometimes I may go further up and consult staff at Wiki Community Central or the Wiki Community Central Forums).

People find out about discussions by looking in the Forum it is the place where these types of discussions take place, it's the location where wikia wide discussions of this nature take place. If users wish to discuss continuity they go to Forum:The Howling, Forum:Reference desk for DW and real world matters and Forum:Panopticon for matters relating to how the wiki is run. You can also get to it by clicking the "Community" bar link on the side or top of the page (depending on the skin you're using).

The discussion relating to the protection of pages was never on my talk page, it was in the Forums where others could find it if they chose to look for it. Not every person who edits on this wiki is interested in the finer elements that make the wiki run or how it's run, that's why we let them explore the "Community" aspects of the wiki. Most of the responses on my talk page aren't related directly to wiki changing discussions, they're a mix of links away to where discussions are taking place; on the Forums or on article talk pages and other behind the scenes of the wiki issues and questions. Nothing wiki changing is discussed on my talk page, a lot of the time it is just questions, like yours that I try to answer to the best of my ability.

Many ideas are taken and embraced by the wiki, such as the protection of upcoming pages, whilst it was two users who began the discussion when you brought up the topic others were on board, because of the issue of vandalism and regular users needing to fix junk edits. As for the majority of the wiki, I would encourage them, as you have done to discuss it within the forums as part of the wiki community. But as seen in the recent response to your question it's the regular editors who are concerned about the editing on this wiki, they (and the admins) are the ones who need to undo and fix junk edits or erroneously created pages, with the protection policy in place it means they don't have to work on keeping the pages that have very little information clear of random speculation and junk edits. --Tangerineduel 16:58, October 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be what the above message was in response to. --Tangerineduel 16:47, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Lost in Time
The website says that the BBC has released promo images, but doesn't say where it got the cast list from. The cast list can be added closer to when the story will be broadcast. The Lost in Time page is a place holder so the story doesn't red-link and so that editors aren't moved to create a variety of alternate pages. --Tangerineduel 16:47, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Wiki
This wiki already covers The Sarah Jane Adventures, I don't see how an external source would be better. Why don't you just edit here?--Skittles the hog 16:24, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a fact".--Skittles the hog 16:30, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

All covered on this wiki. It sounds a bit pointless, do you prefer it to here?--Skittles the hog 16:35, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused at what you wrote. Which to you prefer? Where are you an admin? Try to use grammar. :) --Skittles the hog 16:40, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

It'll never take off with this one existing. I suggest just editing here. Admin status really isn't necessary.--Skittles the hog 17:26, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

If I want to contriubute to SJA I'll edit here. Thanks anyway--Skittles the hog 18:05, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Tips
When writing articles could you: Revanvolatrelundar 17:18, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * write them in past tense.
 * if creating a page, make the first instance of the article name being used on the page bold.
 * give categories to the pages you make.

One more thing
Could you also add sources to the things you write e.g (ST: Old Flames) otherwise the page or the comment will be deleted.Revanvolatrelundar 17:21, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

SJA Wiki
Being an admin on this wiki takes up enough of my time, thanks. Given that SJA is part of the Doctor Who universe I feel that the efforts related to it are best focused here.

I have had a quick look in on the SJA Wiki. You're correct that it needs a lot of work.

As an admin on that wiki I suggest you keep Specialpages in your 'My Tools' (that link is to the SJA special pages wiki). The special pages is useful for getting at a lot of the behind the scenes data that you'll need in making the wiki run and perform at its best.

I've also added over on the SJA forums a link to the list of sysops, as having a page where you all talk is commendable, but may be open to vandalism, I'd suggest either a sub-page of one of your user pages or a dedicated "thesarahjaneadventures" namespace.

As I've said I feel the focus for all Doctor Who universe related info is here, given the interconnectedness of it all it's creating a lot of work to create whole new pages, especially as the layout of the story pages so closely mimics the ones here. But if you're dedicated at it you may be able to create a unique independent wiki that is significantly different from this wiki. --Tangerineduel 13:45, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol
I've been following the Forum:Premature page policies - again discussion and there seems to be some discussion concerning just how early pages are created with 'nothing' on them. I've added a sub-heading to the discussion inviting discussion on this matter. As creating the page too soon will invite frequent additions to the talk page with promotional images and what not (and requests to add these promo images to the page), though too late could irk some enthusiastic editors, so I'd like to find the balance and define it before we get to next year with the new series. --Tangerineduel 16:41, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophes
I've seen an over use and an under use of apostrophes, more of an overuse at times. I think it depends on what you're writing and the flow of the writing. Spelling it out means there is less chance of making a mistake when the word is written out fully. But obviously there's times when it's used possessively where you'd need to re-write whole sentence in a far more lengthy way to remove the apostrophe; for example; the Doctor's sonic screwdriver would become the sonic screwdriver the Doctor owns (or something lengthy like that. --Tangerineduel 14:32, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion in Forums
Could I ask you to leave your thoughts on the discussion on speculation in forum here?. Thanks. Mini-mitch 21:22, January 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's relatively straight forward as stated in the forums, it's just one of those discussions concerning the community and how we deal with information here. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:07, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the admin page is fully protected. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:08, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Linking
I've noticed that when you link to the website 'Doctor Who Spoilers', you link to the main page instead of the actual article. If you click the heading, it will take you to the article, which is much better for referencing. If you link to the main page, it will should the most recent updates, and not the one you may have intended it to be. Thanks Mini-mitch 12:54, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes
Yes--Skittles the hog-- Talk 14:17, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

It should be deleted. I never agreed with its creation. You cannot define a species by skin tone, its conjecture gone mad.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 14:21, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Quote of the week
No it doesn't. Third bullet point: "A user may nominate more than one quote in a single week,"

A user can nominate more than one quote each week, they may however only vote for one of those quotes. The user in question hasn't even voted for any of the quotes they've nominated. All they've done is submitted multiple quotes over successive weeks. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:06, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Forum:Rumours on the loose
Hey, I'm a little concerned by statements you've made in the above forum. Do you feel like you're being persecuted or something? You seem to be fearing that you'll get banned? Have you been threatened with that or something? If I can help explain policy or allay your fears, please let me know. I don't like the idea of you editing in an environment where you think you're going to get banned for making well-intentioned edits.
 * Wanted to let you know that in response to your plea for help at the above-named forum, I've greatly strengthened the language at tardis:spoiler policy to give you more ammunition if you feel like you need it when trying to keep series 6 (Doctor Who) on the straight and narrow.

Preview
Looking through your edits on the Series 6 page, I have noticed that you make some really good edits, edits then go and correct them several times because there are mistakes in them. Do you make use of the preview button next to the publish button? If you don't I would highly recommend that you do so. It will mean that you can easily see any mistakes you have made and go and correct them before you publish them. It also makes the page history a lot easier to navigate if a User wants to check something and your edits will look a look tidier, neater and will look a lot more professional. I apologise if you do make use of the preview button, and if you have any problems, feel free to contact me on my talk pages. Keep up the fantastic work! Mini-mitch\talk 16:53, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Re: The God Complex
The source you have sited for the episode clearly state Could that be the tile of the opening episode. Could be the key word there. I added it to the rumours section, until we have the source say that it is not it could be or might be. Mini-mitch\talk 18:54, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Saw this discussion on MM's talk page, so I thought I'd jump in. Actually, the example you gave from last year, The Pandorica Opens, is the perfect example of why we don't want to rush on naming episodes, even when confirmed in DWM.  At the end of the day, I had to clean up after people went and named the article prematurely.  As it turned out, The Pandorica Opens was an object in the DWU, which no one could have known prior to seeing the episode.  Thus all the references to the episode had to be changed to The Pandorica Opens (TV story) — a bit of work that would have been unnecessary had we just waited to start the article until it was broadcast. For all we know, The God Comples, if it even turns out to be the name of the episode, could refer to a book in the DWU.  Patience simply saves us work.  It's hard to remember this at times, but we're not a news site.  We don't need to have information here "hot off the presses".  We're an encyclopedia — almost the exact opposite of a news-gathering organisation.  15:55:32 Sun 06 Mar 2011

20:33:49 Fri 11 Mar 2011

Mini-mitch\talk 17:22, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Feature articles
It has been, I've got to do some shifting around on the nominations page, March's votes and nominations will be re-instated for April, and everything will be shifted around to accommodate this. I expect the finish fixing it tomorrow or the next day. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:41, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just checked into the Feature article page and it has already been shifted around and noted in the page's history, the Nicholas Courtney article will be a Feature article for the rest of March with the various months pushed back by one. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:12, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

--Tangerineduel / talk 14:38, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

15:46:23 Tue 29 Mar 2011

Badges and trailer galleries
Badges are a relatively new concept which require an admin to contact Wikia central to have the feature turned on. At this point, I have no real opinion on them, as they're not implemented on any of the wikia sites I frequent. I've seen them in action on the Farmville wiki, but that's about it, really. If you feel passionately about including them, I encourage you to start a forum discussion, explaining why you think it will greatly help the forum.

As for this trailer gallery, well, I'm not a fan. Galleries are generally a bad idea, anyway, and are not commonly found on television pages. So on that basis alone, I'd advise against it. As to whether it's okay to include pics from a trailer, well, we don't specifically have a policy against it. However, it comes so close to be dangerous under our spoiler policy that I wouldn't chance it. The moment you start to add captions, for instance, is the moemnt I personally would yank them from a page. Take, for instance, the ubiquitous image of Smith in the stetson. Fine, the picture itself isn't a violation of any policy that currently stands on the site. But if you caption with a reference to a particular episode, or if you say the word "Utah" or give a year, then I personally would yank it, cause we don't know for sure anything about that pic, narratively.

So to answer your question, galleries, generally, are a bad idea on television pages. And there's no specific ban on using images from trailers, but you have to be so careful about how you write the captions that it's simply not worth it. (And a gallery of pictures without captions is really, strongly discouraged.) 16:54:05 Thu 31 Mar 2011

Infoboxes
Sorry Ghastly, being a bit nosey. When I need an infobox I usually copy and paste it from a similar page e.g. to make a new companion infobox I would copy the one from Amy Pond. Hope it helps. --Revan\Talk 16:00, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean an actual template page, then just create a page with the "Template:" prefix. If you mean add an infobox to a page, just copy one from a similar page. For example, If you want a character infobox, just copy one from Keillor.Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:05, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

On the edit page view there is a drop-down box below insert that has the option infobox on it. This creates a blank infobox which I imagine you can add the fields you require to it. --Revan\Talk 16:12, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Admin page
The page could be restructered to state 'Active admins'. Though you're incorrect, if you follow the link to list of sys ops, the user with the longest time without a log in dates from 2006, not 2005. The idea of dropping admins was brought up a while ago. I disagreed then and still disagree. But I will look to re-arranging the page. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:20, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor enemies
Unless you're hoping to comply with the other "Enemies of X" categories, it doesn't really matter.Skittles the hog-- Talk 12:36, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

hey hey back

trgzoirt[o\pey0sdrUJOrWe

Protecting articles
We don't just do it for episode pages, we actually do it for everything/most in-universe stuff connected to those episode pages, which includes/continues to include pages like the Eleventh Doctor, Rory, River and Amy pages etc. All these pages are semi-protected or "locked" to prevent un-registered users from editing them. We currently have more admins this year than last year, so are better equipped with regards to vandalism and spam edits than in previous years. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:09, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Sig
Well, it's not a stupid question. It's not terribly obvious how you do it. But it's not hard.

You need to create two new pages
 * User:Ghastly9090/sig
 * User:Ghastly9090/autosig

On /sig, create your signature. On /autosig, type. Then, in your preferences, under the signature section, type.

Then, when you type ~ you'll get something like:
 * 15:49, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice this doesn't create the formatted time stamp that my sig normally has. But that part of my sig is relatively more complicated than this part. So, for now, let's just go with this.

Of course, I've kinda skipped over how to create the signature on /sig. Well, that's because it's a matter of your own personal creativity. Go to other wikis and look at some discussion pages. You'll see a wide variety of approaches to how to code your sig. Find one you like and mess around with it. Obviously, you can examine my code at User:CzechOut/Sig as a starting place. But that really should be seen as just a starting place. There's tons of styles out there. You'll usually find the most creative on the biggest wikias. So go to the wikia bar at the very top of any page, and click on "entertainment", "gaming" of "lifestyle", and go to the top wikis under each category. You'll find a list of top wikis in each category. Go to those, look at some discussion pages, and you'll probably find some sigs that catch your eye. 15:49:26 Fri 08 Apr 2011

Videos
Uploading full episodes would be a breach of copyright rendering such a practice illegal.Skittles the hog-- Talk 17:04, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

It still applies. I see very little need for such videos in any case. Why would you want to watch Doctor Who in such a fashion when you can buy a DVD. If your going to "its free!", then okay, that's obvious. But if no one bought BBC merchandise they'd stop making it. Okay I'm a little of topic. Essentially, no. Videos would be impractical and run legal risks. I'm guessing such videos would be from Youtube, in which case they will likely be removed as that site is closely monitored to ensure such rules are not broken. You could put a video on your userpage if you so wish. ThanksSkittles the hog-- Talk 17:11, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa. You're into dangerous territory here, so I'm jumpin' into this conversation completely uninvited. :)  Please see and abide by video policy. Failure to comply with it will be dealt with most harshly.  I will seriously ban you, or any other user, who attempts to circumvent this policy, after I've pointed it out to them.  So your one warning is now officially over. :)


 * Now that that friendly li'l threat is over, the basic deal is this. We do allow those clips officially released by the BBC, BBCA, BBC Worldwide, 2|Entertain, AudioGo, Big Finish, Metal Mutt, or other official licensees of the BBC and Bob Baker/Dave Martin's estate. Furthermore, these videos must come from the official YouTube channel of the entity involved. You can't take an officially released video from some fan's channel, in other words.


 * Other than that, forget about it. (Well, there is one other case, but don't worry yourself with it, cause it involves a case-by-case review of whether or not a video classifies as "legal parody".)  I recently went through and purged all videos that didn't comply with our policy, and we've got like four vids on the site right now, only one of which I know to be actively placed on a page.  And that's cause I did it.  An appropriate use of the video functionality can be seen at audiobooks of novelisations.  I would have no objection, for instance, to including BBC Worldwide-released clips of classic stories on the story pages, so long as it's properly sourced from the BBCClassicDoctorWho channel.  Potentially, interviews with DW people might be appropriate, if on the official BBCA YouTube website.  But, seriously, it's gotta be from the YouTube channel of an entity who has a legal right to release it to YouTube.   20:53:37 Mon 11 Apr 2011

I wasn't even aware such a policy existed. Thanks for clearing that up.Skittles the hog-- Talk 21:02, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Video
The video mucked up the entire formatting for episode notes and the rumours sections. It was from the BBC Youtube channel, and but like I said earlier it muck up the formatting. A link in the episode notes to the trailer would be okay, and you can still place the trailer on your User page. Like I said, a link will not disrupt the formatting, and should be okay if it's the official BBC trailer, all you need to out is "An official trailer by the BBC has been released, and link accordingly. Thanks, and keep up the good editing! Mini-mitch\talk 17:23, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler policy
Cheer for that. I just looked at the page, and it could, just fall into "Actor and in-universe articles". It is very vague and should be expanded, but I will not expand it without discussion. At the moment, most admins do remove spoilers from in-universe articles, such as The Silence. I believe this should be the case. Even if it's not (yet) covered by the policy, I feel strongly enough to remove spoilers from In-universe articles since they are all contained on the appropriate series pages. If I was just browsing this wiki for this first time, I would not expect spoilers to be on in-universe articles, as it is unfair on people who don't want to see them, and they can easily avoid the appropriate Series page, and not have to go through every page with caution, wondering if there are spoilers (you see where I'm going). Anyway, thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I will start up a forum discussion within the next few days. Mini-mitch\talk 17:14, April 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at it, it does say this:

"Spoiler information relating to not-yet-released stories must be kept to series or, in some cases, story articles. Please do not create articles about narrative elements rumoured to exist within stories that haven't been released. It is impossible to verify such things before the story is released."

- Spoiler policy

The first sentence in that paragraph I think covers placing spoilers in in-universe articles. I might still bring it up the forums, and if I do I hope you will voice your opinion. 21:02, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers
Please stop adding spoilers to pages like you did here. Although it is the howling, people still go there and don't expect spoilers to be found in it. Discussing certain things there like things shown on the trailer is fine, but things like the stetson wearing Doctor being who he is is kind of a big spoiler. Please keep them away from the howling and to the places they belong. --The Thirteenth Doctor 12:42, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * You may safely ignore the above comment. The Thirteenth Doctor is simply incorrect.  Spoilers are allowed on The Howling, as is made clear by the text on the main page of that forum.  17:36:47 Sat 16 Apr 2011

Tagging "bad" photos
Sorry, I thought I had responded to this when I wrote the bit about video policy. But I can see I didn't. Hmmm. Anyway, the appropriate tag is simply delete. Make sure you read the instructions on that template page, and you'll understand how to use the template with great flexibility. No need for a special "delete image" tag; this one works for every type of page on the wiki. 17:21:28 Sat 16 Apr 2011

Really?
Dude no admins told me it was problem. So what is the problem? Your message was somewhat hostile and I don't like that very much. If you want my respect, please give me respect. K'jal'mar ( The talk| Contribs) 18:14, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear me, I think you mean two months. But it doesn't matter. If someone murdered a person do you think a judge cares how long since the person in question last killed a person? No, because the crime was commited anyway. This isn't anyway comparable but you harrased me. Not cool buddy. K'jal'mar ( The talk| Contribs) 18:24, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. Just understand that what you did isn't acceptable. You may get in trouble. I am not angry at you... but just somewhat aghast that I was attacked for my poorly written paragraph. Just don't do it again okay? I am not trying to pick on you. You just need to realize that people really don't like it when people go to your talk page and threaten you... K'jal'mar ( The talk| Contribs) 13:48, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

LMFAO, you think time is relevant? It's like saying a 40 yrs old man is more experienced then a 20 yrs whilst the middle aged man was in a coma for 20yrs. I am not disciplining you. I was giving advice. Evidently you don't want it... This could've ended on a good note. PS: I shouldn't have to tell an admin if someone is picking on me. The person should know that it isn't right. Oh and I forgot... when you give someone advice at least make sure you follow it too. Tell an admin when I see something I don't like? Really why didn't you do it hmmm? K'jal'mar ( The talk| Contribs) 17:25, April 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course it can. Perhaps a friendship can bloom from this, eh? K'jal'mar ( The talk| Contribs) 00:54, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Past tense
Please remember that when you are adding information to in-universe articles, put all the information into past tense. Your recent additions to the River Song page where written like a plot section and took quite a bit of work to get them to fit the Manual of Style. --Revan\Talk 15:39, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Removal
I think your mistaken. I did no such thing. However, if they were the actual episodes, they shouldn't be on the site.Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:36, April 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * The videos were deleted by Mini-mitch, because, as it stated in the deletion summary they were in violation of the Tardis:Video policy. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:39, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Past tense
Please can you edit in-universe articles in the past tense. It is ok to write in the present tense on plot summaries but we need to keep character articles in universe. Thanks. --Revan\Talk 15:08, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers not allowed in The Panopticon
Please brush up on our spoiler policy. "Spoiler information relating to not-yet-released stories must be kept to series or in some cases, story articles."

- Our spoiler policy The Panopticon is neither a series or story article. I abhor giving users warnings, especially to users like you who are obviously trying to make great edits around here. But I do mean for you to plainly understand how serious I am about this. If you put any more spoilers, even the tiniest little scrap of the narrative future, even if you believe it's common knowledge, in any thread at The Panopticon, I will personally block you for six months.

Please understand: the Panopticon is a completely safe haven. If it's not been on BBC One, BBCA, Starz, Net10 or whoever gets first crack at broadcasting an episode, it can't be discussed at The Panopticon. Introducing spoilers into an area where users aren't expecting them is, as our blocking policy makes clear in its very first ground for blocking, a "bad faith edit" which "lower[s] the quality of the wiki." Users must never, ever, under any circumstances be afraid to go to The Panopticon for fear of spoilers, else much of the work of the wiki couldn't get done.

All that said, I am of course not mad at you personally. As I said before, you've really been helping us out around here, and I'm absolutely sure you meant no harm at all. Indeed, what you wrote at forum:Background honestly wasn't that much of a spoiler at all. Some might even argue it's been effectively leaked by the BBC. But the thing about our spoiler policy is that we do allow spoilers, but in specific places only. So whether this was a big spoiler or not is beside the point. The point, according to our spoiler policy, is that "information relating to these fully protected stories should go on the story's series article." In other words, spoilers about the episode to which you referred at series 6 (Doctor Who) are fine. But not at The Pantopticon.

I greatly look forward to your future contributions. 14:57:54 Sun 15 May 2011


 * Ahh, you've taken this badly. I was so hoping you wouldn't.  I took a lot of time crafting that message.


 * Of course I'm not threatening you. I'm trying to comply with our blocking policy, which says, as regards bad-faith edits, "in most cases, users should be warned prior to blocking".  The policy also says "final discretion  [as to the length of the block] is left to the blocking administrator on a case-by-case basis."  Thus I was warning you of the specific action I intended to take, and therefore am in full compliance with our blocking policy.   Still, I regret that you are "disgusted" by my comments, especially as I praised you twice within them, and took the time to fully explain where you'd gone wrong.  I'd point out, too, that  I don't have to warn you, because the sentence, "in most cases, users should be warned prior to blocking" goes on to say "though final discretion is left to the administrators."  My comments above actually give you the benefit of the doubt, if you could but see it.


 * You are missing the point when you say "most people who go to the Panopticon have also read the series 6 page". The Panopticon must be a place where all can go without fear of spoilers.  Period.  It is hardly an abuse of my powers or a "threat" to defend this simple, core value of the wiki.   15:48:43 Sun 15 May 2011


 * Yanno, much as I want to as a person, as an admin, I can't let pass your assertion that I've "realise[d] what [I] said was a[n] unnecessary and personal threat". I have to protect the rules on this site, so we need to be clear about this.


 * I have not personally threatened you in any way, nor have I admitted doing so. I have, as is my right and duty as an admin, warned you against behavior that, in the words of the blocking policy, could potentially "disrupt the functioning of the community".  At no time during this discussion have I done anything inappropriate.  The only thing that was "unnecessary" was the fact that I warned you at all.  I was well within my rights to ban you for six months, without warning, without discussion.  Seeing that you have already been acquainted with the spoiler policy before by another admin, you really have no cause to grumble about anything I've said.


 * Earlier discussions on this very page are documentary evidence enough that you should've known better than to go anywhere near the Panopticon with a spoiler, and that you should know that our definition of a spoiler is anything that has not yet been broadcast. You seem to feel that if the Beeb have released information it's no longer a spoiler.  As an individual, I couldn't agree with you more.  But as an admin, I have to emphasize that this is a total misapprehension of our policy. The fact that the BBC have leaked this info doesn't make it any less a spoiler in our eyes.  It just means we've got a higher source for that tidbit of information when we refer to it on the series 6 page, which has a very clear spoiler tag on it.  16:27:50 Sun 15 May 2011

Talk page discussions
I thought I had better jump in before this escalates.

I don't believe CzechOut's talk page comments fall under our Tardis:No personal attacks policy as you suggest on Mini-mitch's talk page that his comments are threatening.

I believe CzechOut went to lengths to state that he was no attacking you personally. He referred to our blocking policy when he replied to your message and explained he was enforcing the policy in his statements to you. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:39, May 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tangerineduel here. CzechOut was onyl protecting the spoiler policy I myself would have done the same. If I want spoilers, I know I can go to the Howling, the Panopticon is place were we discuss the editing of this wiki, not spoilers. There should never be a situation where you need to add a spoiler here; if you ever do find you need a source, don't use a spoiler, use an example from a previous series.


 * It may only be a tiny spoiler, but nevertheless it's still a spoiler and still breaches our spoiler policy. It's a mistake, that I'm sure you won't do again. In the meantime, keep up your good work :). Mini-mitch\talk 15:03, May 17, 2011 (UTC)