User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2008/Jun

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TreasuryTag. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You actually did go over 3RR:

• 1st instance: 10:15, June 3, 2008
• 2nd instance: 15:35, June 3, 2008
• 3rd instance: 07:16, June 4, 2008
• 4th instance: 07:32, June 4, 2008

As these all fall within a 24-hour period, it is technically a violation of 3RR. If you think you have exceeded 3RR, your immediate next step should be to self-revert your last edit that you believe put you over 3RR. In this case, i don't think the vio is really that horrible, and I am not planning on reporting it. Of more concern is the tone of your edit summaries, referring to edits as "absurd speculation". While it is fantastic that you take the time to contact everyone whose edits you revert, its always good to remain polite in the edit summaries of the article (and article discussion as well). On a side note, good job on removing a lot of uncited material in the Doctor Who articles. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to explain how you do not see the continuity info as synthesis or fancrufty trivia? I am having trouble understanding how my fellow editors in the article (and only in the article, I've consulted with others) aren't seeing it as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not synthesis to comment factually (saying "The Doctor also commented on little shops in the episode X" is fine; saying "The Doctor's shop-comment was a direct reference by the writer to Y" is obviously not), though if it had speculated an intentional link, then it would be taboo. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. Please reserve {{unref}} for articles without a single reference. There are other tags that are more appropriate for articles that have a link to an academic paper yet do not contain inline citations. ({{citations missing}} for example) However {{unref}} is needed to mark the articles which have nothing whatsoever to support their existence. Already the category is running two years behind, so filling it with articles which already link to references but merely need them reformatted in inline citations is not very helpful.--BirgitteSB 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Used to look really cool, but it's kinda broken - I'm using the latest release of Firefox, 3 RC2. Take a peek. Alex Muller 10:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

o I'm at work now, I'll take a look later! Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 11:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello TT. You may want to comment here [1] as some of the actions of M-N involved alteration of your entries. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi; I did actually see that, I've decided that there's not much for me to add really! Your comment and his behaviour say it all - thanks for collecting those diffs of him striking my comment, though! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see he's responded to your "editing his own post" point but somehow missed your "ruining others' comments" point... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 22:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Even the editing his own post shows a lack of understanding (or perhaps desire not to pay attention to) wikipedia's rules. My understanding is that posts on discussion pages (other than fixing spelling errors) should be struck through if one wishes to change what one said. Altering the words to fit the new discussions usually shows that you have something to hide and this editors other actions would seem to back that up. Ah, well. Take care and have an enjoyable weekend in spite of this (and in spite of content disputes that we have had in the past - and may have in the future). MarnetteD | Talk 22:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure I will. I've got an episode to re-watch tomorrow ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are supposed to cite any' potentially contentious info where it appears, the operative intent being citing anything which might be questioned. Could we use the discussion page to iron out these issues, instead of edit-warring our opinions in? BRD might really help, considering our poor interactions in the past. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the encyclopedia and move it yourself, it's quite easy. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You accidentally added this report to the bot section. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh dear! Sorry about that - I usually use Twinkle, but I was on IE at the time, so I had to resort to using my own brain - never a good idea! Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You have the all clear, it seems. As discussed, make sure it's clearly mentioned on your userpage (or both if you don't have one redirect to the other). Neıl 龱 10:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that you're completely aware as well, but just to follow the proceedures to the letter... you're at high risk of violating WP:3RR too. _TalkIslander 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I've taken note! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good - wouldn't like to see a valuable contributor blocked for something like this :). _TalkIslander 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! Do please give your input in the discussion, though - the more the merrier :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RE to your comment on my talk page: no problem, although I'm guessing we're in for another round of "discussion" with Arcayne now though... U-Mos (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

God forbid... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Rudget (logs) 10:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You knew about the name The Stolen Earth and Luke's presence in that Doctor Who episode before they were announced. Are you an insider, or do you have uncitable sources? Digifiend (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Digifiend. This news article seems to relate to the importance of Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg now up for deletion. Perhaps you can use the information in the Last of the Time Lords article to clarify things. JohnABerring27A (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced alumni is fine but in your last edit you removed several that were sourced. Please be more careful. TerriersFan (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, that line in the press release is seen in all thirteen press releases. Given all we have for next week is the Blue Peter clip (no trailer), this was so secret I think the press office weren't told about it (like Rose in "Partners in Crime"). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is, that the press release has demonstratably been proven to be wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Journey's End press release, I mean. And Piper wasn't in the cast list for Partners in Crime, nor in the Radio Times, so it is plausible that the production office didn't get told about the end of the episode. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not speculating whether the line is wrong, I'm saying it has been demonstratably proven wrong by the episode. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The regeneration itself proved the press release wrong. The final scene of TSE and nearly all of JE is/was under embargo. It's plausible that the press office just weren't told about it. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's established IU and OOU fact that regeneration results in a new face. Besides, you're basing your knowledge you're right on that ridiculous rumour? I'm wondering where Davros is in Parting of the Ways... Sceptre ^(talk) 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, assuming you're right, and you probably are... who's your source for the botched regeneration? RTD may be bad, but he's not that bad. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on. RTD isn't that terrible a writer. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)