User talk:BroadcastCorp

Welcome back
Welcome back, nice to hear from you and good luck in your future edits. Skittles the hog-- Talk 19:15, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Magazines
It probably wont work as wikia images are commonly faulty. This means that they may not save over each correctly and so the image will have to be changed anyway. However, you can easily edit it by hand at Template:Doctor_Who_Wiki/Comics, just upload each issue under a separate file name. DWM is up to date at the moment but DWA isn't. Hope this helped. Skittles the hog-- Talk 12:40, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Go to the link I posted above and edit it. You should be able to work it out from there. If not, message me again. Skittles the hog-- Talk 15:58, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

I will hold you to that :) Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:05, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance images
Heya :) Thanks for your enquiry.  I appreciate the frustration you may be experiencing in trying to replace maintenance images, but the lock is justified because the image has a technically precise usage.  It may seem like you have a great new image, but unless you have considered the precise dimensions or transparency of your image, it may unexpectedly alter the template on which the image is used.  The lock isn't in place to stop people replacing the image.  It's just there to make people really think about what they're doing.  I'm happy to change images, but it does need to be vetted for its technical suitability. Please post the image you'd like to replace the image with to my talk page, and I'll actively consider it for replacement.   17:10:04 Sat 09 Jul 2011
 * Hi again :) Thanks for submitting your two new images.  I've accepted and implemented one, but am rejecting the other.  File:Virgin.png is obviously an improvement over File:Virgin logo.jpg inasmuch as Template:Virginbookcover is concerned.  Obviously we want all these images to be transparent if possible.  Problem is, though, it's only about 200px, which is too narrow for use at Virgin Books.  file:Virgin logo.jpg was doing double duty as both the template logo and the article logo.  So what I've done, for now, is change to your transparency for the template, but otherwise left the old logo intact.  Obviously the best solution would be to make the original .jpg into a transparency, because it's a nice 400px wide, which allows it to be used in all situations.


 * The IDW logo is another matter entirely. I just flatly don't see it as an improvement over File:IDW Logo horizontal.jpg.  Yes, it's nominally transparent, but what does it matter with a rectangle, really.  Also, it's again too narrow for use on pages.  From a design standpoint, it's better that the logo in a rectangular box like a license template be also rectangular.  The current image can be used successfully in both the template and the page. So, yours, though more colorful, is just the wrong dimensions all round, I think.


 * Thanks very much for your submission, and please do keep 'em coming! 19:26:10 Sat 09 Jul 2011
 * Nah, I don't like your latest.


 * I mean I get where you're coming from. It's transparent, so it'll kinda "pop".  But it's just . . . boring.  Plus, in this one instance transparency is overruled by the fact that a) there's the IDW light bulb device — which is cool — and b) the background of the current image ties in to the blues of the site generally, and the "glowy" license box specifically.  What it lacks in transparency, it more than makes up for in its proud DW color scheme.  So, no, nothing worth changing.  Still, if you wanted to strip the background of the current logo and have a transparent version of it, I'd certainly take a look.   10:53:45 Sun 10 Jul 2011
 * To keep ya in the loop, here's how the Virgin thing all went down. I deleted every red Virgin logo currently on the site.  Then I changed the name of file:Virgin-500px.png to file:Virgin Logo.png.  Since the dimensions were practically the same as the original file:Virgin.png that you uploaded, it slid right into the template fine, and I was able to use it on Virgin Books.  One image, multiple uses.  I then completely locked it down, added maintenance and promotional (since it's a logo), and there we are.  Thanks for your hard work in improving this image. (Oh, for a while it'll look like there are blue links in this paragraph when there are none.  The ghosts hang on, like in Silence in the Library.  The only file remaining is file:Virgin Logo.png.)  12:09:15 Sun 10 Jul 2011

Background image
You don't have the ability to physically change it yourself. Only admins can change it. This isn't our rule, but simply the way the Wikia software is set up. But you may certainly submit a proposal at Tardis:Background image submissions. Please follow the instructions at Help:Background images. Also, it must be themed around Torchwood: Miracle Day. (If you don't want to do a Torchwood image, that's cool. You can submit to a later quarter.)  I look forward to your submission(s). 08:30:01 Sun 10 Jul 2011

Sysop
The Tardis:User rights article, which is located on the Tardis:Help page has some information to start and then the user rights page also has a link to a more specific Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:13, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Cite pics please
When placing pics — especially those involving behind-the-scenes personnel such as Matthew Graham — it's extremely important to provide a citation, so that viewers know the origin of the pic. A good phraseology for such captions is " as he appeared on CON: Episode Name (or DOC: Documentary name)".

See examples at June Hudson, John Nathan-Turner, Ed Thomas and Michael Pickwoad — each of which have the citation done slightly differently so as to demonstrate the wide range of possible sentence structures. Point is, get the name of the episode/documentary/event in there, somehow, some way.

Thanks :) 15:33:45 Sat 16 Jul 2011

Category
I deleted the page you marked for deletion, but as CzechOut points out on MediaWiki:Community-corner and on the forums Forum:Categories always blue-links, even if uncreated the formerly redlinked categories actually show as blue now. So, those red, now blue links are on there as examples. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:12, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Apology for rudeness
Sorry for just being rude to you in chat. I totally forgot that I could just start a private chat to continue my diagnostic session with user:MaraClarke. Congratulations on finishing the page you were excited about. 18:47:17 Sat 16 Jul 2011

Best practices with main page images
Thanks for your dedication in updating images on the main page. However, the method by which you're doing it needs to be amended, for technical reasons. You appear to have stopped the practice of simply adding the specific magazine cover file name to the appropriate line at Doctor Who Wiki/Comics. Instead, you've placed the line file:Dwm.jpg, for example, into the template, and are then updating that image every four weeks. That may at first seem like a terribly efficient thing to do, but it's got implications for server load. And you're just creating work for admins who will eventually have to come in and delete the past versions one by one. Which is a pain.

The bigger problem, though, is that there are occasions where the software that runs this wiki doesn't update changes automatically. Updates to pics can take hours, and sometimes days, to properly display. I know I waited around a week for the current version of JNT.jpg to show up, for instance.

Because the front page is advertising the latest stuff, we need to ensure instantaneous updates, 100% of the time. We can't be waiting around for the MediaWiki software to catch up. Therefore, I need you to suspend your current practices and return to the habit of putting the actual, numbered file (like Dwm-cover-422.jpg) back into the template. Changes need to be made to the template from here on out, not to a generic file name. Remember, the template is fully editable by registered users. And it's made convenient by the li'l "hand with pen" symbol near the bottom of each section of the main page. Best of all, once you get the hang of it, it's actually faster to cut and paste the new issue's file name into the template than it is to upload a new version of a file to file:Dwm.jpg.

Please let me know when you've changed over the current generic file names so that I can then delete file:Dwa.jpg, file:Dwm.jpg and whichever others you're currently using.

Thanks :)  17:32:06 Fri 22 Jul 2011

Other Doctor Who Wikis
No, we can't ask them to discontinue. However, these wikis are usually the creation of "rogue editors", if you will, who have broken away after taking a disliking to a certain aspect of this wiki. As you said, they are such low quality that they hardly constitute a threat.-- 10:42, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Miracle Day background
After correcting your image for both kb size (remember, background images can be no bigger than 100kb) and px dimensions, I did indeed upload it. However, the whole wikia domain has been under attack today by a spambot (thus the odd messages you received earlier in the day). This has meant there's been a delay in the system accepting the upload. It appears to have finally "taken". Thanks for the effort of cleaning up what you saw to be a problem. I suppose I didn't consider it significant, just because the image quality is so low anyway, in order to meet the 100kb limit. To my eye, it looks like there are now vertical "stripes", whereas before they were horizontal. But that is preferable, even if equally "unnatural", because the image is vertically oriented. Thanks for sprucin' it up. :)

I should of course tell you that the unexpectedly shortened gap between the two parts of series 6 means that Jack's side of the image will likely be replaced by someone from DW in a few weeks: Eyepatch Lady, River, Eleventh Doctor, Amy, Rory — someone. If you'd like to go ahead and prepare a replacement image for the last weekend in August, I'd be happy to look. Just to reiterate, though, we're only takin' down Jack at first. Rex stays until the end of the British run of Miracle Day. 21:02:45 Wed 27 Jul 2011

p.s. Please remember that our signature policy requires two links in your signature — one to your user page and one to your talk page. The talk page link makes it a lot easier to talk to you. :) Also, do you need help in formally moving your name to user:BroadcastCorp from user:BroadcastCorp.?  It's a bit confusing that BroadcastCorp is a redirect, rather than your actual name.   21:02:45 Wed 27 Jul 2011

Adolf Hitler
Why did you undo my edit? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clone gunner comanda jedi (talk &bull; contribs) 07:48, 28 July, 2011 (UTC).

Standards
Please abide by the minimum standards for production crew pages. These are immediately obvious if you use the "crew" or "actor" formats available from a drop down menu when creating articles. Thanks-- 15:50, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Utopia
I'm currently reworking the featured article nominations. Take a look at User:Skittles the hog/Sandbox two. As for Utopia, under the current method, it would need to be voted for. Under the version I wish to implement, articles have to be up to standard. Any feedback on the link above would be appreciated.-- 16:12, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

The lead is the text prior to the first heading. For examples of this, see: The Sea Devils, The Reign of Terror or The Leisure Hive. Nice to see you had a go at editing the sandbox. Where you have put support, could you please enter a reason. It doesn't really matter at the moment, but if this format is chosen, it would be a requirement. Thanks-- 17:55, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't vote for it. I've already explained that I am reworking the featured article nominations because they just don't work. Articles like The Big Bang should never be featured, it's a complete mess.

In my opinion, the lead for Utopia could be so much better and there is plenty to write about. There are numerous other criticisms I have about the page, but that's why the new method is so much better; it sees improvements made to articles until they're great, rather than just picking the, because you like the episode or whatever. Have a go at writing the lead, you may enjoy it.-- 10:42, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up your addition and sourced it, but it still needs some BTS information in the lead. So far, it's only dull narrative points. Bear in mind that there's no rush to get it featured, and it's unlikely it will be this August.-- 11:03, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

At the least, there are other nominations for next month. Even my suggested version would have you waiting. Bear in mind, it doesn't matter how long it takes, you must have the article up to standard. Take a good look at the article as there's still plenty to be done.-- 11:08, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not sure why you're asking me this. Again, they have to be voted to become featured. It's a stupid system, but that's the case.-- 11:16, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Erm...that's what I'm trying to do. Remember, User:Skittles the hog/Sandbox two, you saw it! :)-- 11:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Chat feature
The chat feature is governed by the Tardis:Chat policy, where it does say that it shouldn't be used as an alternative to talk pages.

I don't think having it enable harms the wiki at the moment, we haven't found a use for it yet, though I think we would need to wait until the second half of Series 6 is broadcast to get a reading on whether it is useful, as that is when we'd have a lot more people editing at one time, and it's during that time that we might find a use for it. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:11, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Signatures and other things
I'd suggest looking around, especially in our Tardis:Help page, where for instance the Tardis:Chat policy is located, and the Tardis:Signature policy and the Help:Signatures before leaving comments requesting help on user's talk pages, also, when uploading images for your own signature please keep in mind our Tardis:User image policy, which limits you to 3 user images (and also remember to select the user image tag when uploading otherwise the images will get deleted). Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:49, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Species stub
Short answer: Thanks, but no. The "nude dude" is staying.

Long answer: We don't want to use an image of a recognised DWU species, taken from a screenshot, because then it'll send a mixed message. Your image makes it appear that it's a Silurian stub, not a general species stub. This image, from the very famous NASA Pioneer missions, is well known for its attempt to convey the nature of Earth's dominant species to extra-terrestrials the probes might encounter. (If you personally don't know about it, please click here.) The fact that the figure is nude immediately implies biological examination of the subject. It's therefore entirely appropriate for species pages, which often discuss the biological functions of various races.

However, the most basic reason for rejecting your image is a simple one. Look at all the other images, and consider what they all have in common. Practically none of them use in-universe images. The few that do like astronomical o bject stub and character stub are using only the tiniest sliver of a frame — so tiny that most users won't necessarily recognise them as DWU images. And I'm debating changing them, anyway. Also, it's better for us if these stub images are in the public domain, anyway. It's a bit hard to argue that there's a fair-use rationale for a DWU image on a stub. So, thanks for going to the effort necessary to create a stub template image, but it's simply against the design ethos of the project.

As always, I'm not opposed to changing the site's more ubiquitous pics, but this Silurian image simply ain't the one for species stub. 15:11:19 Mon 01 Aug 2011

User fix and signatures
Sorry, I can't use the bot to change each instance of user:BroadcastCorp. to user:BroadcastCorp. Doing so will create mass confusion, since it will make every forum thread, every talk page, every user talk page on which you've participated appear to have a new comment. I avoid using the bot in those namespaces unless it's absolutely necessary. This isn't at all necessary.

As for how to create signatures, including ones with fancy time stamps, please see Help:Signatures, as Tangerineduel advised, above. 15:27:35 Mon 01 Aug 2011

RE: Don't Like
Changed my mind. Yours Truly, Primeval13 (Talk To Me) 09:59, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

MM/ Want to talk? 20:34, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Name
Yeah sure, I was using Revanvolatrelundar as a signature for ages and then I thought it would be hard for people to read so I shortened it to Revan. Anyway, you're ok to call me Rev. Happy editing! --Revan\Talk 15:41, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Pic you want deleted
Please explain in greater detail the error you say you're having. There ordinarily shouldn't be a problem in uploading a new version of a file. If you're having a problem doing that simple task, there may be a widespread technical error that needs to be addressed. 15:58:53 Sun 14 Aug 2011
 * Yep, that's a perfect level of detail. Request denied.  The MediaWiki software is working . . . well, let's just say as well as Wikia want it to.  As explained above in the section "Best practices with main page images", the MediaWiki software sometimes simply fails to update quickly.  It appears to be an error, because there are other times where it updates immediately.  But there are times where you have to wait days for it to work its way out.  From my own personal experience, deleting this file and restarting it with the same file name will have no effect, as the software is still waiting for the cache to update on that file.  My advice would be to find the version of the file you truly want, upload the new version, and just wait.  It'll work itself out.   16:10:39 Sun 14 Aug 2011

Who played
The question you've posed Skittles is one that would best be placed on the Forum:Reference desk, as that's kinda what that portion of the Forum is for. It would also allow other users to see your question and therefore you'd get multiple people trying to get the answer. As asking and then prompting one admin may not get you any answers to your question(s). For future questions like this I'd suggest heading to the forums first. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:16, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * C'mon, now: no one can "really need" an answer to the question of who played Einstein in Time and the Rani. Have you seen Time and the Rani?  Serious answer, though, is that we simply don't know with certainty.  Einstein never spoke, and so his performer was therefore an uncredited extra. (You actually got me to go back and check the credits for that dreadful serial. Thanks for that.  Happy Sunday to you, too, pal.) Don't know how you'd go about tracking down such information from so late in the programme's run.  It's somewhat easier for 1960s programmes, because someone wrote a reference book once upon a time that held that level of detail.  I don't think it went as far as the Seventh Doctor's era, though.  Were I you, I'd switch the infobox from "to be added" to "uncredited", as that's more accurate.   16:30:34 Sun 14 Aug 2011

Ah, I see your question has already been answered, but just to summarise: he was little more than an extra and therefore went uncredited. I noticed that you pressured me for an answer half-an-hour after you posed the question. Give a guy a break.-- 16:52, August 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * What??? This is the second time a message seems to have baffled you following on from my earlier rebuke. Are you feeling okay?-- 16:57, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a personal attack. This is your third one by my count. It's always nice to get a perfectly friendly comment answered with sarcasm isn't it?-- 17:03, August 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm almost choking on the irony of "don't accuse users of making personal attacks". As defined by Tardis:No personal attacks, you made what is known as an external personal attack. I purposely wrote that comment so that it was matter-of-fact, not a threat. By that I mean that I meant no offence.-- 17:11, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Erm...your...great! :) -- 17:17, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
I'm philosophically opposed to placing people at rollback. I don't particularly see the point of that particular user level, which is different from saying that I don't understand the utility of the "administrative power of rollback". I tend to think that people who can be trusted with the power of rollback should just be trusted as full admin. After all, with rollback, there's no ability to leave a message explaining why you're doing what you're doing, and you can potentially erase quite useful intermediate revisions if you're not careful. I prefer people to use "undo" wherever possible, and to give clear reasons for the undo. Moreover, there's a question of whether we actually need a person at rollback at this time, given that we now have more active admin than at any time in the last three years. I haven't actually noticed a heck of a lot of vandalism of late.

As far as I know, we don't have anyone actively at rollback right now, and frankly, I'd just as soon revoke all the inactive users' rollback rights. However, Tangerineduel may have a different opinion on the matter. See what he says, and please enquire of him whether he'd like you to submit a formal nomination request at User rights nominations.

As to your statement that you've been here a long time, well, let's not get carried away. You've only been editing, under that name, since November. I'd prefer people to have a couple of seasons of DW under their belt before advancing to admin level, just so they get a sense of what the place is like when we're really pumping out a ton of new articles and are being visited by a lot of new users. Still, as an active participant in forum discussions and talk pages, and as a frequent contributor since November, you're on the right track. Your photographic eye is excellent, most of the time :), but I'd really like to see you tackle some bigger writing chores around here. Why don't you pick, say, a long-neglected companion or character who's appeared in multiple media, and do a top-down rewrite of the page?  Really fill out the page with as much detail as you can possibly find.  I'll take a look at your work, give you some pointers along the way, and we can start beefing up your basic editing skills.   <span style="">17:27:09 Sun 14 Aug 2011


 * Rollbacks rights I've found are more useful on extremely active wikis (or maybe just on Wikipedia), wikis that see constant vandalism, something we've not really seen, major spammers are often caught by the Wikia-Staff before they can do wiki wide damage.


 * CzechOut's point is very valid about giving reasons when undoing edits, and goes back to the Forum:Alienation of new and IP users thread, where we're often alienating people through admins' use of the rollback function.


 * I agree with CzechOut with regard to time spent, how many edits you've done and the quality and length of those is also important.


 * I think your edits are often good and I also agree with CzechOut that long edits are also good. As CzechOut says you're path to becoming a very good editor. And good non-admin editors are also a really good thing for a wiki to have, and in many cases will catch things that admins don't. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:54, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Multiple images
The Doctor's image is discussed more at length than Romana's and Rassilon's, whose are mentioned once or twice.

But, like the others no specific decision on how to deal with it was arrived at. The Master's is a slightly more complicated question than the others. --Tangerineduel / talk 18:03, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Another pic deletion?
What are you talking about? You didn't specify a pic, but mentioned something about Eccleston, so I assume that it's not the same pic we were discussing earlier. I'll take a look at the pic if you give me a file name. <span style="">18:33:05 Sun 14 Aug 2011
 * Again, request denied. Deleting a file's history with the aim of merely putting another picture in the exact same place won't solve the problem of slow updating.  It'll actually make it update more slowly.  The very fact that there's a ton of images in the history proves that the function is working, even if it's not updating quickly.   <span style="">19:05:58 Sun 14 Aug 2011
 * Also, if you're going to ask someone to look at a picture, please give them an actual link. That's done by typing a colon in front of the word "file".  So file:Pic.jpg .  Thanks. :)  <span style="">19:07:16 Sun 14 Aug 2011

Article protection
Please remember that adding does not actually protect the page. Only an admin can do that, all the banner does is show that the page is protected. Since the Series 6 pages are no longer protected and anyone can edit them, there is no needed to added the "Protect" banner.

TV stub
Also remember that if a television story is a stub, it is because there is a section with "to be added" somewhere in it. This makes the article a stub, hence the reason why The Doctor's Wife is a TV stub. Also, a section maybe incomplete (this may only be relevant to the plot, cast and crew sections), such as the crew section on The Curse of the Black Spot, so that page is a TV stub. I would advise you in future, before removing a TV stub tag, check the make to make sure no sections are still at the "to be added" stage and every section is a full as it can be.

Thanks. MM/ Want to talk? 10:12, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Series 6
The source does not say they would be called Closing Time and The Wedding they state they are rumoured. The source, which I got from DoctorWhoTv clearly states that they are rumours, ehcne the reason why I reverted them and added it to the rumours sections. With episodes titles, it is best to wait for a BBC source and use that as reference or site a website that sites the BBC source as your reference.

I was about to talk to you about this, but I caught up with a personal matter.

I would just like to add here That i apologise for how I made you feel about me blocking you in the past. I did not cause mean to cause you stress, but I had informed you on numerous times why I was reverting you edits, which you ignored. But it's good you came back and I'm glad you came back, you made some really fantastic edits since. As i said earlier, I'm sorry that I caused you stress and annoyance that I blocked you, and I shall make sure that from now on, I give Users a warning if I;m going to block them. Thanks. MM/ Want to talk? 17:43, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I did give a reason, as stated above. I never gave a reason when undoing because I used the roll back button. I'm sorry if it upset you, but I had my reasons. MM/ Want to talk? 17:48, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Blocking review
You are of course free to consult the administrative staff with concerns about administrative actions taken against you. However, this isn't like school, where the teaching staff share information about the pupils to whom they've given detention. Blocking of users is something that forms the least important fraction of my time here. Out of well over 100,000 edits, I've used the block function exactly 17 times — and a few of those were block reversals. So I'm hardly current with the "blocking news", as it were. I never knew you were blocked, so just saying "that stuff with Amy's Ganger" doesn't give me much of a clue as to where to begin a search.

I can only speak to what I see in the logs. You were apparently blocked for one week for adding false information — though, again, I have no idea what that false info might have been.

All I can tell you based on the little bit of info I have is that:
 * it doesn't seem terribly excessive — though I think I wouldn't have stopped you from editing your own talk page for that week
 * it was back on 29 May, so I have to wonder why you've waited three months to bring it up

The one thing I can definitively rule on is your objection that you weren't given a warning. To which I can only, and probably insensitively, say, tough. Blocks without warning are explicitly allowed by our blocking policy: "In most cases, users should be warned prior to blocking, though final discretion is left to the administrators."

- Our blocking policy

That means warnings are preferred — maybe even encouraged — but not necessary. And that "wiggle room" is there for good reason. If we had to wait to give a warning to a person who was in the midst of acts of clear vandalism, we'd have to endure a lot of damage before having the authority to act and stop the bugger. I don't find that Mini-mitch — who also has but a mere handful of blocking edits to his name — has a general pattern of blocking which is overly harsh. So, in the absence of the actual details of the case, I can find no circumstantial evidence to support a claim of admin abuse of power.

I would like to know, though, why this review has suddenly become so important to you now, a quarter of a year later. <span style="">19:24:26 Mon 15 Aug 2011