UserTalk: The Farty DoctorEdit
Hello there! Edit
Let's chat! If you have a question or a topic or something that you'd like to say then please feel free to leave your question/comment here and I'll get back to you if and when I remember (my memory is awful)...
I await your comment! The Farty Doctor
Thanks for your copyedits Edit
Hey, it's always great to see another copy editor around. Thanks for you edits so far! Couldn't resist responding to your edit summary at The Stolen Earth. It's not an Americanization — like that zed there — to make a possessive out of a plural noun. To spell the plural of Dalek Dalek's isn't "American". It's just wrong. You won't find a single American text book giving license for such an abomination. Thanks for catching it — because, of course, a spellchecker couldn't.
- Hey, thanks for getting back to me. Could you show me the message I left? I know that you never use an apostrophe to make a plural. I'm a grammar Nazi and a graduate of languages so I'm a little concerned I said that haha. I must have surely been referring to something else?
- TheFartyDoctor Talk
- The edit says: "Apostrophe not needed on plural noun; removed the Americanisation- just a matter of taking the time to proof-read". As you can see, I used a semi-colon to separate two matters that I was correcting. I pointed out that the "apostrophe [was] not needed on [the] plural noun" and that my second correction was an Americanisation. The errors weren't related. But thanks for your comment. :)
- TheFartyDoctor Talk 14:42, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
Your input is needed!
You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?.
Hey Matthew. I've got a problem that I need your help with. We're trying really hard here at en.doctorwho to keep the interlanguage links simple across all the DW wikis. We want users to know exactly how to get to a DW wiki in another language. Thus the standard nomenclature is w:c:xx.doctorwho. If you want French, it's w:c:fr.doctorwho. If you want Polish, its w:c:pl.doctorwho. If you want Spanish, it's w:c:es.doctorwho.
It's vital to have only one main wiki per language, because the MediaWiki software lets us choose only one wiki per language for the creation of inter-language links.
The problem is that we now have two competing German wikis. There's the one you adopted at w:c:de.doctorwho, and there's the one that was created this year at w:c:de.doctorwhotorchwood. That wiki has had explosive growth. It's now sittin' on about 800 pages of main namespace content. Your wiki is still below 50 pages.
Because of this large disparity of information, we think de.doctorwhotorchwood should get the de.doctorwho url. So what we'd like to do is to merge the two wikis, but let you retain your admin status on the "new" de.doctorwho.
Does that sound like something you'd agree to? Or have you lost enthusiasm for editing Doctor Who content such that you don't even need to keep your admin status?
- Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I didn't know the other Wiki existed so I'm happy to get rid of the other one- it's a lot better! Haha I had been spending time on other Wikis anyway so wouldn't have found the time. I'll try to delete it now. :)
Hope this is okay! TheFartyDoctor Talk 21:23, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, you need take no further action. I've got it all set up with Wikia. Just waiting on your consent. We'll take it from here. Thanks :)
- Oops, I sorta asked them too. I'm also going to ask the Wikia people to ask the the admins of the other German Doctor Who Wikia if they need any of our information before they delete it so it's in there hands and when they respond, it'll then be deleted. Also, speaking frankly, the last edit was 1st June 2012 and it's got hardly any pages in comparison to the other one so there's really no point in keeping it. :)
- Hope that's okay with you :)
- TheFartyDoctor Talk 15:18, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
Christmas cheer Edit
Welsh wiki Edit
Question to CzechOut Edit
Hi! I wanted to answer your question to CzechOut because he's pretty busy with behind the scenes stuff and may not see your answer for a while.
First of all, when you reply to someone's post on your talk page, it's policy to reply on the other user's talk page. If you reply on your page, the other user won't get a notice onscreen and won't get an email, whereas if you leave the reply on their page, they will get the onscreen notice and an email notification.
Anyway, it looks to me that CzechOut is not stating that you made the error, but rather, when you corrected it, your description of the error was incorrect. In other words, you cited the wiki's use of British English to correct the use of "Dalek's" to mean plural, and CzechOut was letting you know that it's not correct in American English either, or anywhere else that uses English. Hope this helps! Shambala108 ☎ 14:55, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. I just saw your second reply to CzechOut, so I guess you don't need my input! Just keep in mind that if you have a question for him in future, reply on his page, not yours. Shambala108 ☎ 14:56, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
Story synopsis Edit
Hi! Please do not copy information from IMDB, Wikipedia, the Doctor Who Reference Guide, the BBC, or any other site to this wiki. We prefer original material, as noted at Tardis:Plagiarism. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 14:17, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Hi! The image you uploaded at Spaceship (Robot of Sherwood) has a couple of issues. First, and most importantly, all images uploaded to this wiki must have a license. When you upload an image, there is a drop down menu whereby you can choose a license; in this case, it would be "screenshot". Normally, it would be an option for you to just add the license now, but the second issue is that your image is a .png, which we do not allow for screenshots. We only allow .jpg for screenshots, so I will have to delete the image and you'll have to re-upload it, this time as .jpg and including the license. You can find all our image policies at Thread:148148. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 14:36, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
- It should be, as long as you use the correct license. Shambala108 ☎ 14:41, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you actually need to be an admin. The process requires you to delete and restore the destination page. If you do have any more merger requests, just drop an admin a message and I'm sure they'll help you out.--Skittles the hog - talk 12:48, October 30, 2014 (UTC)
No, you're definitely talking to the right person. It appears to be a minor CSS coding issue. I'll look into it. Thanks for alerting me to the problem!
Human Nature Edit
Re: edit reversion Edit
Hi! The best way I can answer your question is to point you to a specific discussion between a user and CzechOut, another admin (and the one who has written most of the policy on this wiki). The background is that a couple of years ago this user was constantly adding real world info to pages that wasn't supported by any valid sources. He and CzechOut had a long discussion where CzechOut made some really clear and useful points about where we stand on real world information. I'm giving you a link to his side of that discussion as he explains what kind of real world info we want to keep out of pages and why. To me, the information you added seemed to be the same kind of info CzechOut was speaking against. If, after you read through his part of the discussion, you still think the material you added is valid, let me know your reasoning and I'll look further into it.
The link to the user's page is User talk:OverAnalyser#Seriously, no real world information. That's all you really need, but if you'd like to read the user's comments on CzechOut's page as well, you can find them starting at User talk:CzechOut/Archive 13#Real world information when not negated.
Also, off-topic, I came across the message you left at Talk:PROSE and added the link. If you come across another situation like that, let me know on my talk page...I'll see it sooner that way. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 02:26, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
Re: block question Edit
Hi! I'm not sure what the problem is, but I can't find any records of a block here. The last block on this wiki was made on the 5th, and it was an IP user. And your block log shows no blocks at all. The fact that you were able to post a message on my talk page should mean you haven't been blocked. It's possible you were somehow blocked and then unblocked, but I think there would still be a record. It's also possible that there was a block by wikia staff, who sometimes patrol the wikis, but again I can't find a record of it.
Please, when you get this message, try to edit something and let me know if you still seem to be blocked. If so, I'll bring the matter to User:CzechOut, who knows more about this kind of thing, and maybe he can figure out what's wrong.
- This is my attempt at editing this page to see if I am blocked. Blah blah blah blah blah. 20:07, June 7, 2015 (UTC)
Edit summary Edit
Re: forum post Edit
"Do you even know how this Wiki works?!"
"Get over it."
Those were your remarks aimed at another user. I called it out on the forum because I wanted to ensure that anyone reading the forum (and more people read the forums than the talk pages) knows that we don't tolerate personal attacks or insults.
I'm sorry for offending you, which was not my intention, but I hope you can see that the comments you left on the thread sounded rude. And if you are going to claim offense at something I said, then I have to point out that in your post on my talk page you accused me of suggesting you are a horrible person. I did no such thing. In addition, you also called my closing of the post childish, even though I left a three-sentence paragraph explaining why I closed it, and it had nothing to do with you. Shambala108 ☎ 02:28, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
Forum discussion Edit
I had attempted to leave you a message about the points you brought up on the BtF thread, but it failed to save. Given the message you have received in the meantime, I would like to state this: it was offensive. I do know the policy of this wiki, and I am not in denial about the fact that all licensed works are as valid as each other. You did offend, and I also feel that I failed to make my point, primarily due to your dismissal of my statements. It is fine to debate, but to decide that you are right and another is wrong is not debate. In a way, it is a form of bullying. So I feel nothing but support from Shambala108, and you may notice that my final posts were recognising why the thread was no longer relevant, something Shambala was in agreement with me about. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 02:47, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
I have now rewritten my original message. It is considerably shortened, and perhaps less clear, so feel free to contact me if you struggle to understand something.
After our discussion on the now closed BtF thread, I thought it best to conclude my argument here. Let me make it very clear from the start: I am not in any way referring to original prose, or whatever it was you were referencing when you mentioned Business Unusual. I was instead referring to how this wiki stands on sources and their "correctness." Given I understand the policies of this wiki perfectly well, I have no qualms in dismissing your suggestion that I may be ignorant of the reality. I was referring to novelisations, and novelisations alone. This wiki does not credit novelisations as being as valid as the original source. No correction made by Dicks, whether to a verbal gaffe, a televised statement or a plot point, can be used to "correct" the original source. Additional information can be used, but information in disagreement with the original source cannot. Therefore, my valid and on-topic response to the thread was referencing the stance of this wiki on "errors" in sources: that they do not exist. In-universe, everything makes sense, so whatever this wiki, fandom as a whole or even Dicks theorises, it will never be valid over the original source. That was my concern about the thread: that it had become a discussion of what occurred, not whether the scene was valid. Therefore I stand by my points, whether you understand them or not. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 03:04, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for the reply. I can assure you that I bear no grudge, and that I agree with much of your sentiment. No long-lasting offence was taken, and I hope I did not offend by referring to bullying: I don't feel bullied, I simply mean that repeated use of such tactics could develop into such a situation. I'm glad to see that we just misunderstood each other, and I can honestly say that I have been glad of many of your contributions to the wiki. I never intended to prolong the argument, just to get my point across, and I offer my thanks for being a respectful person and humouring me. I hope we can continue to work together harmoniously. RogerAckroydLives ☎ 04:04, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
Maitre d' Edit
- Nah, most occupation pages don't have images. I don't think an image of Fleming would be representative of the occupation. And yeah, the image rules can be a bit complicated, but for screenshots (most people's use case) they're pretty simple: under 100 kb, descriptive filename, pick a license from the dropdown. If you've ever got a question about images, feel free to ask - it's what I'm here for. :) P&P talk contribs 01:57, December 26, 2015 (UTC)
blitzen fish Edit
Hi! I really don't understand your point to me at Talk:Blitzen fish. I was merely trying to discourage the whole "if no one disagrees with me within given time limit, then I'm going to do this". Given everyone's different time zones, availabilities for wiki editing, interests, experiences, etc., there is absolutely no need to assign a (purely arbitrary) time limit that comes close to sounding like an ultimatum. If you think something should be added, do it (which, incidentally, is what I said in my post, therefore giving you and the other two editors the "credit [you] deserve").
You also said, "If people disagree, they can come along and edit it." I said, "Just put in the information, and if someone disagrees later they will either change it or come here." How is that different from what you said and how is my comment (but not yours) not giving editors the credit they deserve?
And yes, Amorkuz and TheChampionOfTime are experienced editors. And in this case, they are familiar with the subject matter. However, I too am an experienced user, and I am familiar with how to edit on this wiki. And this is not the first time I, or another admin, have told a user to refrain from posting time limits on getting agreement for a discussion. Thanks for your attention. Shambala108 ☎ 01:46, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
- You called me out on a talk page with the following comment: "You don't give your fellow editors the credit they deserve." I don't care if you put a smiley face next to it, you made a blanket statement about my editing behavior. You didn't even say, "You're not giving me the credit I deserve", which would apply to just the discussion between you and me; you outright stated that I don't give fellow editors (plural) the credit they deserve. And yet you want me to drop it.
- As I stated in the post above, I've often had to discourage users from leaving some kind of time limit for allowing other editors to comment. That's all I was trying to correct. I had no problem with the material you and the other users had come up with (because I was, you know, giving you guys the credit you deserve as frequent editors).
- As I have stated on probably dozens of forum and talk page posts, when I post I try to educate future readers as well as current readers on policy. I see that as one of my responsibilities as an admin. Shambala108 ☎ 03:10, March 21, 2017 (UTC)
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Shambala108 Edit
Hi, remember how you tried to calm me down when I got overheated? Let me try to return the favour by sharing my own experience. I was sorry to see that you got frustrated over a comment by Shambala. Since I similarly got angry at her in the past (in fact, I suspect now, in retrospect, I was this close to being banned, so angry I was), and then over the course of a couple of years, I think I understand her better now, I just wanted to explain how I see her comments and why they do not bother me anymore. I am not claiming the exact parallel with this case, but would be happy if you consider this as a second opinion.
There were several situations, when she responded to my posts by warning against something I knew very well to be wrong and did not even hint at doing in the post, or at the very least did not intend on hinting. And in every case, I now understand, her response was not really addressed to me per se. Rather she was leaving a blanket warning for all forum participants who did not know this particular prohibition. In many cases, as I also realised later, upon rereading my post, that albeit it was written in the knowledge of the prohibition, a person not familiar with the rule could have easily misinterpreted my words. I can tell you as a professional that writing in a way that would not be misconstrued by people with different knowledge bases from your own is extremely tricky. It's how career speechwriters get fired. When we write a post, we can't possibly exclude all misreadings of it. (E.g., you may now think that I am a career speechwriter, which I'm not, but it's an understandable inference.)
Point is: it's not our fault that our high-level discussions may be misused by less experienced/more passionate/more sleep-deprived/enter an adjective users. We are not even expected to write in a perfect Wiki-legalese. On the other hand, being in many respects a fail-safe for many things, from experience Shambala can often predict potential misreadings. In such cases, she would often react in a way that may be puzzling for us and, at first sight, implies some wrongdoing on our part. Whereas in reality, she's just going full-Minority Report on future editors. That's how I see it, and I've learned to appreciate being Minority-Reported this way even when the warning is not necessary for me: it gives me a glimpse of how others may see my words and an opportunity to express myself in a more precise way next time. Amorkuz ☎ 23:58, March 23, 2017 (UTC)