User talk:Edokter

This is Edokter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

If you leave me a message, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template.

Archives

October 2006 – December 2007

AfD nomination of Truth & Consequences

I have nominated Truth & Consequences, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth & Consequences. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jackaranga (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UKTV - FYI

Is here, but searching their website gives no reference to Torchwood. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What??

You posted on my user page, claiming I had made a personal threat. I never did, your link doesn't show that I did. What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you made a personal threat; you accused Pgagnon999 of making a personal threat. That borders on a personal attack. However, in case you are someone else, please note that the IP you are posting from may be used by more then one person. — Edokter • Talk • 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His personal threats

He IS engaging in personal threats. He posts that he can uncover who people really are and report them to relevant authorities. I could look up his IP and get his home address in about two minutes. I don't, because I'm not a jackass. Other people apparently don't have those kind of scruples. You say you're an admin. Clearly you should be aware of these issues. Do you support people running around wikipedia making these kinds of threats and accusations??? This idiot started several days ago on this article and has been making threats and accusations from then. When another admin REFUSED to go along with his rants, he's since had to take this route. Again, apparently that's fine with you. Excellenmt job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not make a thread of any kind; you are posting from a shared, public IP, whereas he has his IP hidden. He speculated your IP's origins, but there were no "threats". Now please discuss the subject further at the talk page, throwing wild accusations and disrupting Wikipedia by editing arguments directly in the article itself does not help your case. — Edokter • Talk • 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely wrong. He did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.203 (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where Pgagnon999 started with a threat to report someone to their system admisinstrator.

With regard to Middletown, Connecticut, your removal of the Neutrality tag constitutes conflict of interest as your IP address is a state website. If you would like to dispute the tag, please open a discussion on the talk page for the article. Otehrwise, you'll end up on the Wiki list of organizations/ agencies that self edit--a pretty embarassing place to be. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is where he was engaged in further activity to intimidate a poster: Also interesting is a history of edits from user at the Connecticut gov. (Middletown gov?) state IP address and a seemingly related Wesleyan Univeristy IP. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This vicious and underhanded behavior is threatening and abusive.

He does not engage in civil behavior, he deletes QUOTED material and then posts garbage from lame sites that support his narrow and partisan beliefs. ---That's nasty behavior. And astonishing to me that you support him in it.

He's pushing point of view, he's violated neutrality, he's deleted referenced material, he's certainly does not assume good faith. I mean, he's out there attacking people and all but terrorizing them. And that's the guy you've put your support behind. Great.

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in RE Middletown, Connecticut. Besides the behavior evidenced in editing the article, the user has also left harassing comments on my user page. . .looks like they were just blocked. Again, thanks.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but people can see what you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.203 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the problem user signed on again & deleted via 66.19.34.88. Sorry this has turned into such a nightmare.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I have asked for a deletion review of Image:TheEmptyChild.jpg Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood

Perhaps we'll now get a well-earned rest until the 16th? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defenitely... I'm sleeping in tomorrow! — Edokter • Talk • 02:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in crime

Hello Edoktor. I noticed you, quite rightly, made this edit [1]. I don't know if you noticed that the anon IP that made it has done a bunch of editing at this page Partners in crime. The lack of a "C" in the title is only one of the pages problems. I don't know if you will want to move the page or do something else with it (and it may get deleted, also), but, I will leave it up to you whether something should be done. The younger Doctor Who fans do love to enter as many rumors to the articles as they can don't they? Thanks for all your hard work on the various DW pages to try to keep them encyclopedic. MarnetteD | Talk 14:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the page should ultimately be move to Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), which already exists as a redirect to List of Doctor Who serials#Series 4 (2008). However, looking at the content, it should probably deleted for now; it is full of speculation and original research. I'll put it up for AfD. — Edokter • Talk • 15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've got it watched. Will ^(talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: contentSub

I'm well aware that it's not a hack; it wasn't displaying in the same place as the software-generated text would. I'd be happy to upload a screenshot if you'd like. Also, personally, I like the text below the redirect as it is more noticeable and it makes it clear that the redirect is intentionally un-functioning. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the text was a little too low. However the redirectText class (big font) did work. Do you mind if I put that back? — Edokter • Talk • 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not at all. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love & Monsters

You as an admin know better than to revert war over content disputes, which is what that looks like to me. I'm no admin, but I'll say this: Since the user keeps going against the current consensus of the article, it could probably be blocked, right? Obviously you are involved so shouldn't block the user yourself, which is probably why you put a note over at WP:AN. So, clearly, you are correct in your reverts, but since it isn't "vandalism", then it probably wasn't a good idea to keep reverting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never called it vandalism, and since I reverted once per 24 hours, 3RR isn't really an issue. I did stop reverting and asked on AN for someone else to have a look. — Edokter • Talk • 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count more than once: Jan 5 (19:56), Jan 6 (07:54), Jan 6 (19:46). That would be 3 reverts within a 24-hour period (with 10 minutes to spare). I'd like to AGF on the IP account, so I am not going to say it could be a sock, however I completely agree that the user hasn't been communicating, and that doesn't help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Doctor Who The Christmas Invasion.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Doctor Who The Christmas Invasion.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to do, the desired outcome is the status quo, but I think you might have missed this one Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_6#Image:3doctardis.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudget!

Dear Edokter, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a badly phrased sentence, adjust it, don't delete it.

That's in the Wikipedia guidelines anyway. Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.20.98 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject DoctorWho - Image Deletion

Hello Edokter, I wanted to ask you a question about image deletion policy. I see that you have recently had a dialogue with Fasach Nua about the deletion of some Tom Baker and Doctor Who images in respect to which the former had insisted upon deleting.

Fasach Nua has also just deleted a publicity still of Alexandra Moen (playing Lucy Saxon) from the article of the same name which had originally been uploaded by another user but which I had linked in to that article. I have included a Fair Use Rationale for the article on the image template. Fasach Nua again deleted the image saying that it was not possible to argue fair use in the circumstance of living people as they were deemed to be replaceable. I have checked an essay on the policy here at Living People and there seems to be no consensus view, rather administrators can make a judgment call. What is your view on this? Should the image of Alexandra be re-instated? Kind regards--Cala braxthis 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In this case, Fasach has a point (though he should not cite an essay). It is not a publicity still, but a cropped screenshot, and those are generally not acceptable to illustrate (living) actors. had it been an actual promotional photo released by the BBC, it would have been less problematic. But is this case, Fasach is right; the image should go. — Edokter • Talk • 09:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice on this. I understand the point. Can you tell me if you think that this promotional image which was released on a BBC created website to generate publicity for Doctor Who - Tho Sound of Drums would be suitable for inclusion within the article: http://www.haroldsaxon.co.uk/lucysaxon.shtml ? Kind regards--Cala braxthis 11:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that image is not released for publication, but already part of a published work (the website). Promotional images are ususally found as part of news releases and presskits. — Edokter • Talk • 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again. I have just done a web-search for BBC press-kits and found this document [2] which is the BBC press release folio for the Winter-Spring 2008 season. You will see at page 35 of the document (page 20 of the pdf file) under the heading for Hotel Babylon, that Alexandra Moen has been added to the cast. There is a picture of her along with the rest of the cast. If I were to extract that image, would that constitute fair use? If not, I have also found this image published on The Sun website which appears as though it has been lifted from BBC promotional materials in relation to Doctor Who [3]. Would this qualify as fair use as presumably the copyright is held by the BBC rather than News Corporation? Kind regards--Cala braxthis 12:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Sun is already published, so that won't work. And the BBC portfolio has her in character, which is also a problem (plus the quality is simply too low). It would be allowed in Hotel Babylon, but not on Alexandra Moen. — Edokter • Talk • 14:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"dash dash dash"

I'm the IP. I put there so i could remember where I left off. Will ^(talk) 13:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK :) Tip: use a comment (< ! --) — Edokter • Talk • 14:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind - normally I rewrite plots in userspace, and I use the horizontal line in those cases. Will ^(talk) 15:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

FYI, for someone so concerned with accuracy: it's spelled UNVERIFIABLE.

Replaceable fair use Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Roodngis (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is great news! I'm glad you're back; I'd be lost :) And there's absolutely no shame in taking more (and longer) wikibreaks. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ifd

I accidently put today'snominations in on the 17th's section, I have moved them to todays section, along with your contribution Fasach Nua (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then...

"It was a word joke; it doesn't insinuate anything. " In that case, I'm going to delete the LINK as well, because if it doesn't insinuate anything, there's no reason for the word 'beard' to be linked, either. Assuming that word should be linked is original research, you fucking prick. 65.87.20.98 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]