User talk:Bold Clone

Rumors
You don't actually need the "is rumored to be leaving" part, since it is in the rumours section. If it was in the notes section, then you'd need it. --The Thirteenth Doctor 15:44, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Protection of talk page
We generally don't protect talk pages. I've left a message on the user in question's talk page telling them to look in on our Tardis:Discussion policy. If you believe any of the user's comments fall into the personal attack category (see Tardis:No personal attacks for more info) I will take action to prevent the user from editing. Thanks. --Tangerineduel 06:45, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Eighth Doctor regeneration
Your interuption was fine, ive reverted all new edits to the Last Great Time War and Regeneratioin section of the eighth Doctor page because it just got far too overcomplicated and all was its known on that topic was on the page for a start and with PaulMcGannisawsome's edits the section was becoming a bit speculatory.

Why cant some new evidence come about to sort this problem out :(

Revanvolatrelundar 09:53, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. :) -- Bold  Clone  16:18, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Special
Hey just looked at your argument about the Christmas Special. Thats crazy, his very first TITLE was rude "shocking and shameful" then he goes on about blaming the policy. DalekVictor554 21:38, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes
Yes, no quotes. We used to have them but they were dropped in favour of a professional look.--Skittles the hog 22:52, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * See here for the policy.--Skittles the hog 23:04, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Table of contents shift
Heya, just wanted to drop a note on your page about why I reverted your reversion of my changes to the various infoboxes. The moving of the TOC to the right is to help avoid the huge masses of white space that can occur on pages with long tables of content, like episode pages. I've spent the last couple of days examining the wiki on a page by page basis to determine whether it is, as you've alleged in your revision notes, making "all the pages" look bad. And that's certainly not the case in the various skins and browsers I've examined. The matter will of course be put up for discussion at the forum, so you'll have a chance to participate then, perhaps as soon as today. Because this change behaves in a highly individualistic way — every page looks different — I just wanted to be able to study it before proposing the change be made permanent. I hope you understand that the matter can't be properly considered by the community at large unless you leave the change in place until the discussion is closed. Thanks :)  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  16:50, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up on one of your revision notes, this is not an issue which could have been tested on some sandbox before "going live" on the site. It's not actually a new template, over which the coder can have precise control.  It's simply the moving of the TOC, which is different on every page, to the right-hand side of the page.  It must be observed as a "live" feature in order to fairly assess its performance.  And as for "site staff", I have no idea what you mean.  We are the site staff.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  16:59, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the fundamental rules of wiki editing is the concept of being bold. Unlike Wikipedia, however, we don't have a "staff" here, so much as three or four active admins.  Unless people actually grab the bull by the horns and change things, nothing gets done.  That said, I am a big proponent of putting things up for community discussion.  It's just that this particular change has to be seen to be discussed intelligently.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  17:08, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again :) Look, it's no big thing, but you might want to be careful throwing around a word like "vandalism".  Especially since my changes were annotated in the revision history.  And since it's obvious I've been carrying on conversations with other users about this change.  Vandalism doesn't mean "a change I don't like".  It means the intentional changing of an article in an unconstructive way, such as blanking it, filling it with irrelevant text, the addition of advertising, or the like.  This is an effort to improve the text flow of articles.  You may not like the way it looks, but that doesn't make it vandalism, a very serious charge.  It has already been examined and commented upon by Tangerineduel, who has accepted that it must be examined "live" on pages.  If you look at the history of my nearly 15,000 contributions, I think you'll find it extremely unlikely that I'd intentionally commit an act of vandalism.  I'd appreciate it if you assumed I was editing in good faith — just as I believe that your reversion was done in good faith, if without understanding fully what was going on.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  17:48, January 3, 2011 (UTC)