User talk:Digby Tantrum/Archive 1

Response

 * I was responding to a request from another user in reinstating the "Burn with me" point. I believe as the production staff have said they wanted this as a catchphrase for this episode, a previous use of the phrase within the same series is notable. Wolf of Fenric 18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But belief isn't, in itself, grounds for inclusion. I'm afraid that, unless you can produce a source that backs this up as significant (and the Fact File certainly isn't that), it's speculative and therefore original research (although I am open to the possibility that it may prove significant later on; we're just not there yet.)


 * I'm not going to waste time reverting it again for the time being. Mainly because I'm sure someone else will. Digby Tantrum 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you notice that different people keep putting this note in?  Seems like many consider it noteworthy.  Continuity notes about Francine Jones and the Sinister Woman's conversation keeps going in and out.  So does continuity notes about Martha getting the superphone and TARDIS key.  In the cases of the latter two; yes, they are covered in the plot summary.  But they're continuity noteables, too.  The like can be found repeated in the plot and continuity sections of episodes regularily, as people who are keeping up on continuity then don't have to comb the plots to find out which episode Martha got the TARDIS key, and which one Francine's mother spoke to the Sinister Woman about Mr. Saxton.  -- AvatarMN 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
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 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
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 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
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 02:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

About OG
I actually do think it's a reliable source - except for user-created content (forums, reviews). Will (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, I checked. Just saying that the OG new section is quite reliable. Will (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Three-parters
Does the "To Be Continued" count? Will (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan-cr*p== ==

Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
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 08:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

your edits to Doctor Who
Hi - a quick look (and it is *quick* so I could be wrong) at your edits to Doctor Who seem to suggest that you have broken 3RR. I'm not going to do anything about it but edit wars are never the way forward. --Fredrick day 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So as you can't argue your point you are now going to try and discredit me? How text book. Pure coincidence, I am posting from a network Movellon 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of trying to discredit me why don't you provide a logical, verifiable, attributable argument for your case? In the discussion page. Movellon 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your point makes no sense and you continue to avoid dealing with the follow: The BBC have stated that the TVM counts. They have done this on screen (Human Nature, Doctor WHO CONFIDENTIAL), on news items on BBC.co.uk/DoctorWho in a BBC published book (which also directly confirms the half human nature of the Doctor) the half human theme is central to the plot of the TVM, without it it wouldn't exist. The Doctor states that he has a human mother. This is all onscreen and verifiable. You ARE trying to impose your POV on the article and you are trying to hide behind WIKI:OR and WIKI:NPOV rules (when in fact you are the one violating them) and now you are trying to discredit me. Very very smooth man. I honestly feel like you need to take a step back because it feels like you are trying to WIKI:OWN the article.Movellon 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you do this on purpose. You are just clutching at straws here. The book you mention is not a franchised spin off, it was produced by BBC books, contributed to by RTD. The BBC website says the TVM counts, it can't count and not have the Doctor as half human. How do you explain his human mother? See you can't dismiss it. Nothing in the TVM contradicts the show as previously pointed out and nothing that has been subsequently shown does either. Please think about what you are doing here, you are doing the very thing that wikipedia is criticised for and turning it into a propaganda mouthpiece for your own POV and it's it wrong of you to do so because you are devaluing the project as a whole by doing so. Movellon 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how it is a POV if the content owners have come out backing that interoperation several times? Movellon 11:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So let's get this straight, a BBC published, BBC Produced, BBC Book with contributions from the current production team doesn't count? I'm sorry you are grasping at straws. It's not licensed merchandise if it's produced by the people who make the show and a companion to the history of the show. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctor-Who-Legend-Continues/dp/0563486406/ref=sr_1_1/026-4512787-7275644?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182435782&sr=8-1
 * "Synopsis:
 * "Doctor Who: The Legend Continues" is a large format, lavishly illustrated paperback book, published to celebrate the exciting new phase of the UK's most popular science-fiction series. Fully updated with exclusive new series material, this epic publication takes the reader on a journey through five decades of TV history, covering every one of the TV stories. Each entry includes a summary of events, new facts about the characters and fascinating behind-the-scenes information. Stunningly illustrated with a vast collection of photographs, including previously unseen pictures from archives and private collections, this book is a must-have - not only for die-hard "Doctor Who" fans, but for those who have been thrilled by the new series and anyone who has a fondness for the show. As well as providing a unique overview of the series, it includes features on the make-up, special effects and merchandise that have all contributed to the "Doctor Who" legend. Ranging from our first glimpse of the TARDIS in a junkyard on a cold November evening in 1963 to the current Doctor, Christopher Eccleston, "Doctor Who: The Legend Continues" is a comprehensive, stylish and evocative guide to five decades of tea-time time travel." "Publisher: BBC Books"
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/tvmovie/detail.shtml "The Doctor manages to convince Grace that he is the same man that she thought had died on her operating table, and that he is an alien Time Lord - albeit half-human on his mother's side." Give it up. Not only have they produced this book with it in they have also made online news reposts and episode guides that clearly state that the TVM counts and that can't count unless you accept the Half Human aspects as presented in it. You really should just take a step back mate because it is obvious that you are trying to inflict your POV on the article and what's worse is that you are trying to hide behind policy when doing so. I would have thought that as an administrator and you would know better. Movellon 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
That's happened a few times today!--Rambutan (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
Maybe...Stupid 24 hour periods. john k 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image
People sure are attentive when it comes to Doctor Who-related articles. I moved and changed the previous image rationale to fit the new one. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's a good thing people are paying attention. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing
Howdy! Can you explain why you're re-adding the text to User:Pigsonthewing that the community has determined is inappropriate? Also, please review WP:3RR and use caution, you're about to enter block territory. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 19:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked you for 24 hours for your 3RR. Please come back later and reconsider revert warring. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No 3RR violations from me, son. Mark H Wilkinson 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You did the same revert yesterday. 3RR isn't a suicide pact, you're reverting as if they were "credits" to be spent.  Come back tomorrow, and next time you feel compelled to start reverting, take it to the talk page if you find yourself repeating your actions. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 20:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I trust you'll have learnt how to count by then. Mark H Wilkinson 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify. You appear to be operating under the impression that each 24 hours, you're entitled to 3 reverts that you can make, as long as you don't exceed those 3 in that 24 hour period.  This is not correct.  3RR is a framework for quantifying what entitles revert warring.  As this was the fourth time in two days that you had made the reversion, it became clear that you were engaged in rv warring, so I applied the block.  Reading your talk page, I also saw that you had reverted mightily in conflict before, so it was established that you had plenty of opportunities to stop revert warring. but you appear to still follow the "I'm entitled to 3 reverts a day" approach, which is, again, wildly inaccurate.  When you next find yourself reverting someone, take it to the talk page instead if you find yourself on a second revert.  There is no good reason to try and "win" a revert war, discussion is always going to be a better choice. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 14:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So I've been blocked for edit warring, not 3RR? Ok, then.  You might have said that in the first place, to save confusion.  However, I might point out that the previous occasion to which you've referred was resolved on the talk page: I know this because I set off the discussion.  As such, it's not the greatest evidence to use in characterising me in the manner you have.
 * Oh, and I hope you sent appropriate warnings to other people in the content dispute. I'd hate to feel I was being singled out.  Mark H Wilkinson 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you may be confused, 3RR stands for "Three Revert Rule" and describes the prohibition on revert warring. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, WP:3RR is a policy devised to discourage edit warring. To violate 3RR one would have to have performed the necessary number of reverts on an article within the given time period.  Unless there's an admin convention to cite 3RR whenever it's decided a edit war is taking place, whether 3RR has technically been breached or not?  Mark H Wilkinson 17:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have any concerns about your block or feel I've acted improperly, consider posting to WP:AN/I. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 19:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ach, it's a small matter in the grand design, and not worth pursuing. Life, as they say, is too short.  And besides, this exchange has afforded me the chance to exercise my talent for pedantry, so I can't say it hasn't been diverting.


 * Pax, man. Mark H Wilkinson 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I can't respond on your talk page, I'll say it here: the community has not determined that the content is inappropriate. The discussion on ANI didn't actually achieve a consensus on that issue.  Mark H Wilkinson 08:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Email
I have sent you (DT) an email, as requested above. As a matter of interest, revert wars aside, do you personally think the paragraph re L Mig on AM's page is 'appropriate'? (It seems likely we have not heard the last of it.) -- roundhouse0 18:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the email! I was rather worried about that feature.


 * Regarding the paragraph that was on User:Leonig Mig's page: like the paragraph that was on User:Pigsonthewing's page, I don't think it paints the user in a good light.  I certainly wouldn't want something similar to that in my user space because it'd effectively advertise me as someone too petty to let go of a grudge, no matter how carefully it was worded.  Is it a personal attack?  Hmm, while it might be viewed as fair comment by some people (I'm aware User:Pigsonthewing's approach to edit discussions has not made him universally popular), it does seem to put the boot at the point it says "unreasonable and hypocritical in his edits".


 * But this seems rather moot. User:Leonig Mig has been active since the paragraph was removed and has not taken the opportunity to reinsert it, so I can only assume he's decided it's not worth the hassle.  Mark H Wilkinson 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant the paragraph (X say) about LM on AM's page. X has been on AM's page since before 31 Aug 2005, when LM tried to remove it. I find this diff (30 Jan 07) where LM asks AM to remove X, a request repeated here (11 March 07).
 * AM says X is not a personal attack, but rather a collection of facts; my Q is whether you think the presence of X is appropriate, particularly as LM twice politely requested its removal. (By all means reply here.) -- roundhouse0 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can fully answer the question as you've worded it without appearing to take a position on who should take most of the blame in what appears to be a clash of personalities; as far as I can see, there are faults on both sides of this dispute.  I will say this:  AM's been fairly canny in the way he's worded it.  And as indicated elsewhere, while I don't think it's to his credit to have it there, it's not clear that it's a NPA violation; and so I don't think it deserves to be removed on that basis alone.  However, my understanding is that, ultimately, user page content has to be acceptable to the community at large; so an RFC on the matter might be a better way to establish a consensus on that than simply wading into that Userspace while making dubious claims about NPA and 3RR.  (Not that I'm claiming that would be your approach.)


 * (Of course, it would really be better if AM just removed it himself. But I somehow doubt that's going to happen.) Mark H Wilkinson 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand we have this diff where AM (who is both canny and articulate) removes para Y (which has only been on LM's page for a few days in toto since 2005) from LM's userpage citing NPA. (I even hesitate to correct spelling mistakes on user pages.) -- roundhouse0 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is this "on the other hand"? Mark H Wilkinson 06:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the one hand we have AM justifying the retention of para X on his page (where it has been since 2005, and despite polite requests to remove it) saying it is not a PA, and on the other hand we have AM removing para Y from LM's page (where it didn't appear at all until June 2007) citing WP:NPA. (I would say myself that the 2 paragraphs are of comparable PA-quotient. It may be that X is worded more cannily.) The recent reverting by 3rd parties did begin with this and this where Vox Humana removed both X and Y simultaneously (which seems to me a defensible solution). LM and VH then lost their cool somewhat - AM tends to produce this effect. -- roundhouse0 10:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This very much feels as if you're canvassing me to take "sides". I've given you my opinion on both paragraphs, I've noted Leonig Mig appears not to want to push the issue of the paragraph that was on his page and I've said an RfC may be a better way to achieve a consensus on the appropriateness of the paragraph that was on  Pigsonthewing's page ahould he decide to reinsert it.  I really have nothing else to offer on this issue.  Mark H Wilkinson 10:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I await further developments with interest. At least we have sorted out your email position. -- roundhouse0 12:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Only Series Lead Doctors
What series was Paul McGann the lead of?--Dr who1975 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd still disagree with you but I think I like the page the way it is now so I guess the arguments over.--Dr who1975 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

re Last of the Time Lords
You were quite correct, I was wrong to warn anon ip 82.47.23.237, as I intended to warn another ip for the removal of legit content per this diff. I have apologised to 82.47 both at that talkpage and the talkpage created when registering. Thank you for your help in this. LessHeard vanU 12:54, 25 June 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 Wikipedia 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 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
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 07:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:LOTL
Must've been an old diff that I reverted then; it doesn't make sense... Will (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare Code
As a courtesy I'm informing you that I have reverted your removal of an anonymous editor's additions to The Shakespeare Code. There's nothing there that was OR or seemed any more trivial than the other trivia listed. One of the edits was also a grammatical correction. Normally I wouldn't send a note like this but I accidentally hit the "return" key while typing my edit summary so my rationale was truncated. I also placed a note on the Talk page for the benefit of anyone else, and you're certainly welcome to comment. My main viewpoint is there is already a lot of bullet-point "trivia" (although no trivia section) and if you're going to remove one or two items you might as well remove them all, though I encourage you to seek consensus on the talk page before doing that since there is substantial information in the so-called "trivia". 23skidoo 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for your comments; I think your points are valid. I wonder what he meant, though? Andy Mabbett 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
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 07:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Valiant link
If you mean the sound of drums link, then i misspelt it. If you mean the co-ordinates link then I did not put it there and have no idea how to fix it. LizzieHarrison 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Iceberg & Titanic
Just to let you know that your recent revert removed a fact tag, which I've replaced, since I assumed it was a mistake, since it seemed to be incidental to the edit summary. If it was deliberate, please re-remove it, explaining in the edit-summary. Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
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 07:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are prolific, aren't you?
Hello! My recent, um, Bunting-related indiscretion has prompted me to create an account after all. Editing articles is a lot easier than I'd realised.

Be seeing you. -- Liquidfinale (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2007.

Ol' 81...
Guy really needs to stop speculating, doesn't he? Will (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed alive.
Aye, I came back to do a bit of fiddling. Can't quite remember what drew me now. I think I logged in to make one change. Logging in showed me that I had new messages (which was me getting a large delivery, several months of the Signpost). Then I rediscovered my user page and ended up revisiting a few of the articles I'd started and doing some edits there. It just sort of snowballed. Not sure where it'll go from there. I don't have great plans to become a regular editor again but I have been enjoying it, so it could happen.

Oh, I remember what sucked me in. I suddenly thought about the corporals killings. It's an event that's always lived with me somehow but I'd (once again) forgotten what the event was even referred to as or any of the participants involved. I ended up Googling something like "IRA funeral pulled from car executed" and one of the early hits I found said it was referred to as the "Corporal killings". It wasn't until I googled that and saw the Wikipedia article come out near the top that I remembered I created that article. It's grown quite a lot since then. And there's been an edit war over whether they should be described as "killings" or "murders". It's not a point I really want to get embroiled in.

Anyway, thanks for dropping me a line. --bodnotbod 16:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned
Thanks Mark (Digby?). You're right, I sometimes lack patience. But you and I seem to be the only one responding to him. I really wish more people were involved. Anyway, I already told him I'm not going to try to argue with him anymore. --Edokter (Talk) 19:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
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 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Movie
I'll stop changing the name of the movie though its code is : TVM so leave it. Plus the Children in Need Special episode number is 170a so please keep it that way.

Message from User:VitasV (originally left on my user page on 23:39, 19 July 2007)

Archangel network
Surely the Doctor could sense him? What exactly did he say?--Rambutan (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC and 42 (Doctor Who)
Okay, I didn't mean to be disruptive to that page, I was trying to balance the dispute over which image was more suitable. I will be more careful in the future. --Brinstar 15:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter stuff

 * Yep, that was a mistake on my part, but I think the edits removing the stuff seem fairly safe, as there is no sort of citation for the inclusion of the new stuff until we have some sort of citation for its inclusion. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
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 06:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ooper Case
Yes. That, and some of the others, do betray my newbie status a little though. I should really follow the assume good faith guidelines before making snide remarks. Though that is difficult when you see the crap edits some people make. Liquidfinale 21:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

TVM
Hmm, fair enough, though I think the citation is a bit dodgy, since it is in no way contemporary with the production of the movie, which therefore stretches the meaing of "Production Code" quite a bit (i.e. if it is a code latterly used for the serial, it wasn't a production code). Methinks the BBC site also has that fan mentality of "everything must be consistent" and/or has a database where a field must be filled in! I'll leave it as is for now, anyway. Stephenb (Talk) 09:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

18 01 08 Image at Cloverfield
We appear to have re-uploaded the original image at the same time, mine taking precedence. However, the one you uploaded was a better quality one, which I don't have. Can you re-up it? Sorry 'bout that. Liquidfinale 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

J King
You reverted my edit, adding the comment:

Rvt last: for some reason, a number of links were munged up by the edit.

Which links are you referring to? Dominique 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comment: very curious. Could be a bug & may follow this up with WP Bugzilla. Unless - perish the thought - a clever jinx has been placed on this much-debated word! Dominique 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep re-editing my posts?
What's wrong with the version of U.N.I.T. i keep having erased from wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Will Tinkerer (talk • contribs)
 * Thak you for your message, i understand that my spelling of "U.N.I.T." may be a bit hard for some to read. I was only attempting to keep the acronym in the same style as written on their insignia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Will Tinkerer (talk • contribs)

Barbie Paper
Hi.

I was a member of the crew that gave John his toy Dalek. It was indeed wrapped in Barbie paper! I was also the sound engineer responsible for the playing in of the voices of Anne Robinson and the 'What not to wear' sequence. You see me (briefly) in DW Confidential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw6aps (talk • contribs)

Barbie etc..
I have no idea if it's visible in the dvd, most of that stuff was shot by members of the cast or the DWC crew and I've never watched the final result. The reason I know what happened is that I was there!! We also had champagne for breakfast on location to celebrate.

How can I prove it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw6aps (talk • contribs)

Doomsday (Doctor Who)
Thanks for your attention to the above article. However, due to Doctor Who's strong national ties to the United Kingdom, the MoS developed at project level (WP:WHO) recommends we consistently use British spelling. There's a big article on the difference between English variants here, but for practical purposes it's probably easier to navigate the Cambridge ALD if you simply want to determine whether a mistake has been made. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Howdy! I wasn't trying to de-anglicize the spelling, it looked like a misspelling.  Are you saying that "Traveller" and "Cancelling" are british versions of the words?  I looked at the MoS and the Cambridge dictionary link and didn't see that specified. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 13:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In brief, yes. If you look closely at the Cambridge entries for the words, the single "l" versions are specified as the US spellings; it's written from the POV that our versions are the "norm", so to speak. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks, I've been looking for a way to reliably differentiate between the two.  The obvious ones like 'colour' and 'stabilise' are easy, but the double L threw me for a loop. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 15:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding image:Doctor42
I would like to know why the image was deleted, the deletion log says it was deleted because it wasn't being used, when clearly it was being used on the article. Also the log said it was deleted because it was non-free, well in accordance to the policy it was minimal non-free material on that page. So I'm confused as to why something would get deleted if there wasn't a problem with it.--Brinstar 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what happened, I went back to Talk:42 (Doctor Who) and I noticed that someone have left a comment linking the image I previously had, the link worked and it took me back to it. Very strange. Despite this I'm having trouble restoring it to the page, as User:84.51.149.80 keeps reverting and accusing me of edit warring. What should I do about that? --Brinstar 15:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for opening up a voting section on the talk page. Don't forget your vote counts too.--Brinstar 20:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes
I made a reference to it in Redirects for discussion, but I guess I didn't list it officially. Should probably just re-target it to Monster. --Closedmouth 01:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)