User talk:Dresken

List of doctor who serials
If you want more opinions, the correct and sensible approach is a neutrally worded invitation on the doctor who project talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Master and The Doctor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Big Finish Short Trips
 * added a link pointing to Dan Starkey


 * Doctor Who Unbound
 * added a link pointing to The Doctor


 * The Diary of River Song
 * added a link pointing to River Song

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 9)
I would like to request your input in the "Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent" discussion, the issue needs to be discussed. Fan4Life (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite, but I'll let others have a chance to respond and discuss first. As I am not sure what I could add to the discussion in the early stages. As personally, I am on the fence on which source to support. But I think your points raised do deserve consideration and I'll be keeping an eye on the discussion as it progresses. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I invited you because I am yet to receive a response. Fan4Life (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been a long time - you have tried to do the right thing - so maybe be WP:BOLD - it might get reverted but then should also get the discussion started. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doctor Who: The Third Doctor Adventures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Llewellyn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * No worries Alex. I just happened upon it while I was reading up on Disambig guidelines for the main Bill Potts move discussion. I not currently familiar with Disambig enough to really contribute to the main discussion yet. But that other discussion seemed pretty black and white. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Law Society
I didn't say the tag wasn't "applied in good faith", so I don't think there's much to be gained by insinuating otherwise. My role as an administrator is - in part - to review articles tagged for speedy deletion. When I believe that the tagging is justified, I follow that by deleting the article. When it isn't, then the tag gets removed. As far as the precedent itself goes, I'll follow that up on the article's Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. I wasn't intending to imply you thought it was bad faith, just that I thought I was doing the right thing by reinstating it as it appeared to meet the criteria and I was sure the user was not acting in bad faith (as the article was involved with another discussion that got heated), but I can see how it may come across the other way. I do apologise. I will comment that I was not aware it was "the review" - I am not sure how I would have differentiated your actions from anyones with out thoroughly digging at the moment. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All good. The simplest way to differentiate (at least in my case) is that on my User page, I indicate that I'm an administrator. In this regard, that means I'm "the guy with the power to delete the article". There's other fancy things I can do, but that's the key one here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who Continuity
FYI, one of my recent removals on the classic series (Edge of Destruction) was restored by MarnetteD saying Continuity works forwards as well as backwards. I can only imagine they've not been following the recent talk page conversations. Interestingly, MarnetteD did not actually revert me: he or she simply copy and pasted everything I removed--so as not to alert me, presumably, which I find troubling, not to say annoying; it's not something I'd expect from a blue-linked named editor. If they want to keep doing as they do, the next move will be to change or challenge the edit of the WP:WHO/MOS, and an RfC being called on the main DW talk page and loads of people being pinged. Could be an interesting few weeks. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah well, its the way consensus works - and you have a sound point of view on this. I would recommend using WP:WHO/MOS as the edit summary in future (as you did the second time) - it makes it clear that its coming from somewhere and hopefully less likely to come against opposition by opinion when there is a consensus to point to. More reasoning for the removal of each of these on the EoD article though, "alive" isn't relevant there but would belongs (albeit in a different format) in the TARDIS article and "visiting" wouldn't be notable here even if it had appeared on screen (although possibly notable in the main Doctor Who article as an overall concept that the show didn't "begin" the adventures). Cheers, Dresken (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * True, and that's in line with my general feeling that sourced "stuff" often does belong somewhere, and with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia editing, but it's not always easy to think of that in the heat of the moment, or indeed to feel it's worth it to make that effort every time we spot stuff that certainly doesn't belong where it is at the moment. Bit beyond my patience, sometimes. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was justifying the removal further. Just because you removed it from the wrong article doesn't make it you responsibility to add it to the right article. And in all likelihood, if its important, it will already be in those other articles anyway - but if people are wanting reasons for it not to be there. eg TARDIS has "It is heavily implied in the television series that the TARDIS is "alive" and intelligent to a degree (first in The Edge of Destruction, 1964)" Cheers, Dresken (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Another one I am pondering is whether cast notes should go forwards (yes, that's been happening in the old episode articles too, some people really do like to keep busy). It's not nearly as immediately distracting, but I think it should at least be questioned.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Award
"I'd like to thank the Time Lord Academy..."

Now you have an idea what it is we're up against.:) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Plots in the classic series
Have you noticed that unlike our practice in the current series articles, these appear to regularly identify the number of the Doctor along with a blue link?... as if it weren't bad enough the plot summaries are usually tediously long, someone has to go and confuse the general reader too (whaddya mean Fourth?). Ugh.ZarhanFastfire (talk)
 * I had started trying to shrink the plot of Doctor Who and the Silurians and noticed they mentioned the Third Doctor - which I changed - but I hadn't looked closer at any others yet. Weird case of plot should be in-universe - and the numbering is out-universe. Dresken (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And on the subject of ordinals, another mistake I've noticed in character articles etc. is the regular referencing of a given Doctor with easter-egg linked ordinarl-incarnation, e.g., in Bill Potts referring to her being a companion to the Doctor "in his twelfth incarnation"--which is of course completely wrong (thanks Moffat) for any Doctor beyond the 8th. I've corrected that one, but there must be a lot of those dating from before War came along, but the fact Bill's article says that tells you people aren't thinking things through. Of course there was a time when you could slip back and forth easily between Doctor and incarnation. (I was about to say thanks Moffat again but actually he wouldn't have had to create War but for Ecclestone being 'unavailable' for the 50th). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

A treat for your perusal
Hello D. Thanks for your work updating the episode tables for the Dr Who articles. Your journey reminded me of this video that I saw recently. Even if you've seen it before you might enjoy watching it again. Thanks again for your work and cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers MarnetteD - I had seen it before but did enjoy watching it again. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Episode Tables

 * Where was the consensus for [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dresken?offset=20170727185100&limit=19 these edits]? They have broken all the inward links from episode names such as "The Cave of Skulls"; "The Forest of Fear"; "The Firemaker"; "The Dead Planet"; "The Ambush"; etc. not to mention the links from dab pages like The Survivor; The Escape; The Rescue; etc. and hatnotes like those at The Expedition; The Ordeal; etc. Are and  deprecated - if so, where is that stated? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you switching the articles over to WP:LDR? That goes against WP:CITEVAR. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am just going to say being WP:BOLD doesn't require obtaining consensus first - I didn't think it would be controversial - using a standard table for displaying the same information. Thank you for making me aware of the in-links, I can fix in-links as episode tables provide this ability too (I have done this at "The Cave of Skulls" as an example). The move of the references was technical as the parser I am using to help generate the new text through is currently only able to keep content at the same level or lower - if it is really considered that much of an issue I can look to do something about that too - but they are not being moved for a personal preference of where references go. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation
I don't see the need to split the discussion here. Dresken (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Link to the actual discussion.

If you are going to destroy the work of other editors, you should have the basic courtesy to leave an informative edit summary. You do not seem to have understood the content of the edit you reverted, and in fact you seem to be simply trolling by reverting. Kindly explain your reasons on the talk page. What you posted there was not adequate, as it failed to explain why you restored a grammatical error and text with no meaning to the article. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who Continuity again
No sooner had I gone through most of the classic series last spring when half the Baker years (at least) had loads of it reinserted or else new unsourced continuity (and things that belonged in production, etc.) appeared. I know because someone added warning tags and they dated from June or July 2017. We need to get the word out somehow that anything unsourced should be deleted on sight. It's just depressing. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TRAINSPOTTING listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TRAINSPOTTING. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:TRAINSPOTTING redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus
Hi. I meant that before doing a thing for the first time, take it to the talk page. Sebastian James (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that anyone is gonna be totally OK what you've done for the first time? Of course you must discuss it first. Sebastian James (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The first time for RT critics consensus. Do I really have to explain all the things detailed to you? Sebastian James (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Update to scripts by AlexTheWhovian/Alex 21
Hello! This is a generic message created and copied to all editors using scripts that I have created. As I have recently changed my username from "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21", any scripts that I have created that are listed at your common.js page may, at the moment, no longer be working. To fix this, simply update all occurrences of "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21"; see here for an example. All the best! -- / Alex /21  11:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Counter-Measures (audio drama)


The article Counter-Measures (audio drama) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Article has never had any independent citations; fails WP:GNG; tagged for notability for some months"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Counter-Measures (audio drama) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Counter-Measures (audio drama), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charlotte Pollard (audio drama)


The article Charlotte Pollard (audio drama) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No independent sources. Has been tagged as needing more citations for 2.5 years and still nothing."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Counter-Measures (audio drama)
Hello, Dresken

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Counter-Measures (audio drama), should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Counter-Measures (audio drama) (2nd nomination).

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

 Onel 5969  TT me 11:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)