Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:16, 14 July 2007

User talk:Rambutan/Archivebox

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.

Template:Add

Don't wink. Wink and you're dead.

Geez, can you make people any more paranoid? Anyway, thanks for the comment on the Chronology FLC; as a WPDW participant you should've at least given the FLC a look :) Will 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's not as bad as my theory that Tom Bombadil is the Master (it says that phrase several times in Fellowship) Will 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Iceberg & Titanic

Ah, I didn't spot the added tag, I was slightly more concerned about the "fact" that was introduced. But it was my understanding the cite next to Minogue's name was also being used for Tennant (it's a BBC news release which indicates they're filming together for this episode). Mark H Wilkinson 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Martha Jones

Just a minor point - I don't disagree with your edit but I do disagree that the Master has met most of the Doctor's female companions. So far as we know he never met any of the 1st or 2nd Doctor's companions, nor did he meet Liz Shaw, Leela, Romana, (not sure about Sarah Jane Smith - they were both in the Five Doctors but I'm not sure if they actually met), or Rose. Kelpin 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Test thread

This is a test. Please don't do anything with it, including reply. Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Doctor42.jpg

"Your caption is better dramatically, but not descriptively"

This is your point of view. Is it possible we could have both pictures. The original sets the scene, but my addition highlights a crucial turning point in the episode that needs some illustration.--Brinstar 17:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why only one picture per page? Could you direct me to the Misplaced Pages policy page.--Brinstar 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert to my talk page! delldot talk 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, glad to help.--Rambutan (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Teen

I wasn't deleting information... I was merely replacing all of that lengthy code with {{Imperial Teen}}. It's much neater, and now the Imperial Teen namespace won't be listed as a band template under the list of band templates. Please do not revert these edits, as I'm merely trying to clean up Misplaced Pages.

Xnux the Echidna 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation

I'm afraid you've violated the 3RR again on Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who): , , , .

Because this is your third 3RR violation on Doctor Who articles within a month, I have blocked for 72 hours. Please be aware that, should you violate the 3RR again on Doctor Who articles, I am going to have to block for a prolonged period of time, as repeat 3RR violations are a major problem. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

TreasuryTag (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This edit scarcely counts as a revert: it was replacing blue links mistakenly removed by AlanD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - see the article talkpage for further details.--Rambutan (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It might be gaming the 3RR nonetheless, and given your history, I'm not inclined to unblock. I've asked Phil to take a look at your explanation, though. — Ral315 » 07:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wouldn't call it gaming - it's just that the "revert" sending me over the limit wasn't a revert.--Rambutan (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a very small revert, but it was a revert. Given your history with 3RR violations and Doctor Who articles, you should be being careful enough that you don't hit that line on any revert, large or small. Note that the 3RR states "This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. " Although, as always, I feel your edits were made in exceelent faith and were generally correct, you have many more edits withint he 24 hour period that, while not technically reverts, serve to remove, reword, and police the article. And you have, in that period, few attempts to discuss the changes you're making on talk - in fact, your only real talk page edit consists of trying to get someone else to make a revert for you because you've hit the 3RR. In other words, you're still trying to maintain your preferred version of the article through sheer mass of editing instead of through discussion and consensus-gathering.

The only mitigating factor here - and it's a very large mitigating factor - is that your preferred version of the article is unquestionably more in line with our content policies than any other offered version. But your methods are those of an edit warrior, and this can only mitigate so far. Phil Sandifer 12:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for help! Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse. Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Misplaced Pages's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Misplaced Pages-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry. Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

As I've pointed out several times, the term "edit war" implies - never mind the dictionary definition - me removing something, an IP replacing it, me removing it, the IP replacing it: a real battle. All I did was remove OR. I don't think that undoing another editor's mistake could count as a real, genuine revert, especially when ANI agreed.

It is sad that I am blocked for making good edits (not just good faith edits, but good ones), not least since I am very good at dealing with them - most of my reverts are made very quickly. They weren't controversial (sp?) and edit-warring in nature, and the spirit of the 3RR wasn't violated. I honestly cannot understand what I should have done when it was added. Should I have just left a talkpage note and left it? You say that I should be aware of the 3RR; I agree I should, but you don't have to block me, let me take my chances with other admins if I've been acting in "excellent faith". At least, reduce the block timer. --Rambutan (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NB: see Kelpin, Ral315.--Rambutan (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy

In light of your recent edit to my talk page, please reference to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:FAIRUSE, following this review, leave me a messege, after which we can have an informed dicussion. The Fashion Icon 10:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so damned stupid. The message I left you was a template message used by hundreds of Wikipedians every day. It's fine with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:FAIRUSE. You must not persist in removing images without discussion. That's all there is to it. It so happens that the image's presence is supported by policy, but if it was debatable, we must then debate, not delete. Quite simple really.--Rambutan (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedians looking for help