User talk:TedEdwards/Archive 1

Home

Talk

Sandboxes

Userboxes

Tabs

Twinkle

Edits

It is approximately 2:27 AM where this user lives (UK). []

Correct time

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

May 2014

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Timothy Dalton without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! McGeddon (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm Dawn Bard. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Mousetrap without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dawn Bard (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Mousetrap, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

Hi there. Regarding this, please have a look at Wikipedia's policy about spoiler warnings, and please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

September 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Witch's Familiar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Alex|The|Whovian 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Witch's Familiar

You are constantly reverting edits despite what we are saying. Be careful, as you will be warned - WP:EW. I have begun a section on the talk page, take it there. I'm sure plane English is easy to follow. Take. It. There. Instead of constantly revering edits, despite of what we are saying. Badgerdog2 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Witch's Familiar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Note: The above warning is for the articles The Magician's Apprentice (Doctor Who)‎ and The Witch's Familiar. You are the one wanting to revert from the status quo by going against policy and standard practice for every television series, and episode of this particular show, so it's up to you to begin a discussion. Also, "I don't agree, though. So talk if you're planning to revert." is an extremely WP:OWNy way to view the issue at hand - watch that. Alex|The|Whovian 13:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Warnings

Warnings will continue to be posted on this page as per policy, instead of a hidden page of yours, given that a user's talk page is far more public. Alex|The|Whovian 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not hidden, there's a link in the notice to it and you can also just click the tab that says 'warnings'. Both pages are on my watchlist and both are easily accessable by anyone. I'm not trying to ignore warnings, I'm just being organised.Theoosmond (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Then I would suggest putting a link to the page in your signature (you can do this in Preferences), so it is as publicly accessible as your talk page is when you sign your posts. Alex|The|Whovian 10:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 DoneTheoosmond(talk)(warn) 11:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Note: I have pinged you in the discussion of "Face the Raven" / "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" being a three parter (even though there was already a link in the edit summary as I made the edits) - please do not revert further until you have participated in the discussion and gained a new consensus. Alex|The|Whovian 00:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do I need this message? I only reverted the mentions of it being a three-parter once, and only because it was unsourced.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 11:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I supplied a link when making the edits, and you refused to even add to the discussion before reverting. Alex|The|Whovian 11:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you basically saying, before reverting edits, I should check the page history?Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 12:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, given that there was a reason and summary when the edits were made. Alex|The|Whovian 12:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, will do in future.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 12:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Redlinked cast members

Please stop unlinking cast members that are red links. These links are valid, see WP:REDDEAL. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It said nothing about actors on the link you sent me.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should it have anything about actors? It says "a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name", which could be about anything at all, including an actor. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are now reverting me. Therefore, Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The pages that are commonly read aren't littered with red links.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Because its hardly likely a link will ever be made about 1960s actors nowadays, and articles such as The Tenth Planet don't have red links, even though those actors, according to Redrose64 (talk · contribs) ideology, could one day have Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoosmond (talk • contribs) 16:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Why shouldn't articles on 1960s actors be created? People write articles on actors from decades earlier, see for example Margie Reiger created on 7 March 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I meant not well-known actors, which Doctor Who has employed a lot of. Those are the ones which articles aren't going to created about.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Margie Reiger isn't exactly well-known. I'd never heard of her until 8 March 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, but have you ever seen a silent film? If you haven't, no wonder you haven't heard of her.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 17:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course I have. Who do you think I am? I'd heard of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Fatty Arbuckle (and others) over 45 years ago - originally through the TV series Golden Silents, which was on the BBC around 1970. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I said have you ever seen a silent film, not if you've heard of any silent films.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 17:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous reply, first sentence. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Then why did you say "I'd heard of..."Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 19:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it's accurate. In about 1970, me and my parents would sit down and watch Golden Silents on TV; they never missed it, so I didn't either. Michael Bentine, who presented it, would talk about all these actors - Buster Keaton and the others - in between the various films. Not clips, not documentary footage of "this is what we used to do", but the actual films - single-reelers for the most part, otherwise there wouldn't have been time to fit in more than one or two per programme. Bentine talking about them, me listening to him on TV, that is how I heard about these actors. I didn't read about them in books until years later. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, and before we go off on a complete tangent, do you really think its likely that pages on 1960s actors or earlier will be created any time soon? I reckon a few (and I mean a few) articles about them will be created. I think Margie Reiger is one of those few.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 20:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

How can you be sure that they won't? What motivated Matthisvalerie (talk · contribs) to create Margie Reiger? You don't know, just as you don't know who might want to create an article for, say, Billy Cornelius who was in The Crusade (where you delinked him twice) and also The Space Museum (where you also delinked him). The person creating the article for Cornelius might not be a DW fan, they might create the article because they like Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) (he was in the "A Sentimental Journey" episode of that); or perhaps they like the Carry On ... films - he was in several of those, such as Carry On Screaming!. The presence of a redlink in the pages for the two DW stories means that when the article is created from one of the others, it's already linked from three other pages. This is all covered at WP:REDDEAL, first bullet, and the first sub-bullet of that. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

But if that happens, couldn't the link be remade?Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 21:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't you understand that by removing the links, you're making extra work for them that shouldn't be necessary? If Billy Cornelius (actor) gets created, people are then forced to go through the articles again, looking for Billy Cornelius, deciding if it's the actor, the the footballer or some other Billy Cornelius, and adding the appropriate link which should already have been there. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what, I reckon "red links" should be hidden and look like normal text when someone visits the page, but would become "blue links" if a page of the name of the link is created, so Wikipedia pages aren't littered with red writing. Do you know how I can suggest this to the administrators or someone? I mean, pages don't look good with red links all over the page.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 21:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Try WP:VPR. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5