User talk:Edokter/Archive 7

I've started a proposal to rework our image policy structure at WP:VPP. Any thoughts are, of course, welcome. I hope it would have the added bonus of helping to prevent further problems in this area. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.js/IEFixes.js
Hi.

, you introduced ":before" pseudo element into IE specific CSS. However, this needs to be gated by "$.client.profile['versionBase'] > 7", since IE7 and below (and this includes 8 and 9 when run in "compatibility mode") do not support the ":before" pseudo element. As it is, the current code triggers exceptions in IE7 and 8/9 in compatibility mode.

Thanks,

Peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you post examples of these exceptions? On my end, I get no exceptions at all and IE safely ignores the :before selectors. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 22:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot reproduce it anymore. i did not realize wmf6 was deployed - it's possible that this is a residue of old-code-caching after the upgrade. i believe this is known to happen after upgrading. sorry about the noise, peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Internet
Hi,

I tried to apply  to Internet, but without success. Can you assist, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The  in bodystyle= causes hlist to fail. Remove that and you should be good. —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just the job. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 1906 (film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1906 (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1906 (film) (5th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who serials edit deletion
Hi! I just undid the edit that you made for sating that I did not have valid source. FIrst I said TBC which means to be confirmed, so I did not say it was fact. Second the source is completely valid because at the end of the article is a bunch of links to other articles which are actual specific reasons for all of those titles. Lastly, your Phantom of the Hex, is more flawed than what I did because there is another actor in the episode that called it Hider in the House, and has not been confirmed by the BBC so you saying that it is the actual title is wrong, plus it is another episode, not the next one which is rumored to be called The bells of saint john, you just messed that up (probably an accident because I see that you are a big Doctor Who fan). Please don't delete it again because I believe I followed guidelines correctly, but I thought it would be easier for people if the source went all to one place instead of lots of different places. Have a nice day! -Zoopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoopedia (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Horizontal lists, again
Please could you take a look at Template talk:Wikipedia languages? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Talkback
Template:Talkback has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 10:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

unordered lists
Would you take a look at Help talk:List. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's article for improvement and the main page
The development for TAFI has progressed significantly over the last few weeks, and we are prepared to launch the new feature on the main page for Feb 9th at 0:00 UTC. Concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. An example page has been created to show what it would look like. I would like to invite you and several other admins who have recently edited the Main Page to swing by this discussion to help us hammer out the final logistics of integrating the content onto the main page. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you mentioned that you would be interested in helping out with the coding for the Main Page. I've also been talking a bit with David Levy, and he has expressed interest as well. What sort of information would we need to work on this project? I'll see what I can do to help you out. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 14:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The s tag isn't deprecated any more
Hi, re : the tag was deprecated in HTML 4.01, but isn't deprecated in HTML5. You may be thinking of the tag, which is not just deprecated but obsolete in HTML5. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * AH, OK. So what would be the better choice? — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The tag is for "a removal from the document" whereas  is for "inaccurate text"/"contents that are no longer accurate or no longer relevant". The  tag seems to be the more general case, so perhaps you should restore that one to how it was. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, I wanted to update MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert.js as well; I wanted to add a space in and, but I am puzzled by the tokens used in there. Is it '.' or '_'? —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably best to send that one to MediaWiki talk:Edittools. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Functional randomization on the Main Page Sandbox
It took a while, but I got the code to work. I have posted details over at Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_article_for_improvement. Your scrutiny would be appreciated, the code could use a look over. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Dates
So what can I do about this? C T F 8 3 !  06:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links
Hello. I noticed you removed interwiki links from pages such as Village pump (technical). Many such links have become redundant with the deployment of Wikidata, so there is no harm in removing them. However, I noticed that you also removed interwiki links that are not yet present in Wikidata. Please do remember to check links are present in Wikidata before removing them from a page. Thank you. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 21:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BURN-E title.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:BURN-E title.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Today's featured list/April 2013
It's happened before, and I can't remember what you did to fix it, but we've lost April Fool's Day. Or is that a joke?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Make a note :) — Edokter  ( talk ) — 17:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lovely job, thanks! (Note made!!). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Move reverts
You reverted my move of Catalogue of CSS classes and Ambox CSS classes. Please undo your reverts; there are no such thing as "CSS classes" and, AIUI, a Bot will fix any double redirects. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Get consensus first please. I'm not too impressed by a single web purist. The titles have been longstanding, as well as all incoming links, so the move was counterproductive. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 17:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The number of incoming links - most of which derive from a small number of templates - isn't and has never been a reason not to move a page that has the wrong title. I'm not a "single web purist"; neither is the author of the article I cited, who happens to be "one of the principal editors of several CSS Specifications"; and nor are the people he cites. I urge you to reconsider. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't reconsider, I just regard this as a contested move. Post a requested move on the talk page. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

CSS
Hi Erwin,

I'm trying to add this piece of CSS to hide the Kaltura "advertisement" show in the new video player. It works fine when added to my personal vector.css, but has no effect when added to MediaWiki's Common.css. Do you have any idea what's going on/I'm doing wrong? Cheers, —Ruud 12:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it still not working from Common.css? It always takes a max of 5 minutes for changes to Common.css to kick in. If that's not the case, it may be overridden by something that is loaded after Common.css but before your vector.css (but I can't image what). Also, try  instead. —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to work okay, now. I thought updates to Common.css where instantaneous these days? (And did seem to be now.) —Ruud 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Resource Loader check for changes in site-wide files it loads every five minutes, so changes are not immediate, unless you happen to save it just before the five-minute mark. Changes to user files are immediate. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Navbox styling
Hi, did you finish testing ? -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No adverse effects in /testcases. However, it was not implemented per Template talk:Navbox. It can be undone. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Collapsible list
Hello, Edokter. What do you make of this? CsDix (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Page à supprimer sur WP:FR
Are you http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mod%C3%A8le:R%C3%A9ponse/testcases&action=history ? If yes, thanks consult fr:Discussion_modèle:Talkbackalien/Suppression — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanes852 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are my edits, but they were imported from enwiki. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 10:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hlist on other projects
Hi Edokter - I'm trying to create a horizontal TOC over on Wikivoyage. I copied your hlist CSS code to the common.css file and the horizontal list part works. However, when I include the TOC (like Template:Horizontal TOC), the TOC doesn't stretch across the screen like it does on WP -- instead it prints horizontally but within the normal width of the TOC (see my user page). Do you know if there is some code in WP's commons.css file that allows the width of the TOC to be more flexible? Thanks. -Shaundd (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. The constained width seems to be caused by CSS associated with the TocTree extension that is used on WikiVoyage (but not here). You would need to override that CSS in Common.css to counter the effect. —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! That's a big help. -Shaundd (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Columns-list
Template:Columns-list has been nominated for merging with Template:Div col. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Fancy punctuation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.147.105.184 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Protecting causes the article in the alt-text to change. Seems easier to leave one unprotected and RBI the vandals. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems the last edit before my protection actually caused the alt text to change. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it takes the first NASDAQ-100 company mentioned in a random article as its input. When you protect the article, it changes. He's actively encouraging his readers to vandalise. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The last edit changed the comic, not the protection. Also, the first company being linked to will be used. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see now... it jumps pages upon protection! Bad boy Randall! — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's finally making some sense. Sporlo (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He knows us too well -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  19:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's probably sitting behind his desk LHAO. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The hint and link are now systematically different. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noticed that way too late... I still don't get how often the company updates or what method is used to pick it. Are all the edits used, or just the current one after a set period of time? Does Randall ever publicly comment on his comics after the fact? Sporlo (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to change every one to five minutes, and it probably scrapes the current revision. He's probably using the API to query the pages. He rarely comments AFAIK. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if he's going to do something when the donations hit $25000 because of that Roomba frame. Sporlo (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why 25000? — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No reason. Just a random guess. Round number. 22xxx so far. Sporlo (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Meh. Nevermind. I don't know what I'm talking about. Sporlo (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Palmares
Hi Edokter, I've already asked Gadget850 this question, but unfortunately they haven't got back to me. The question also applies to you. (Copied from User talk:Gadget850) I really need some help, and it seems like you your right person to ask. I want to add the same column options used in for, so it can be set like this  or. The default is two columns and there is another parameter for a source. The problem is that when viewed on a small screen (mobile) the lines split and it becomes impossible to read. I've set up a sandbox and the appropriate testcases. Hopefully you can help me out, as I'm struggling. If you can't, could you point me in the right direction. Cheers. BaldBoris 11:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Size of Reference number
Hi, I'm administrator in Asturian wikipedia http://ast.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portada. I'd like to change the size and position of references next to the words. I mean: [1], [2]. I was trying find it in MediaWiki:Common.js, but i'm not sure. Do you know how to change the size and position ot these marks? As you can see in English wiki they are smaller and lower than in Asturian wiki. Can you help me? Thank you very much.--Astur (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I dont'see any difference in size. If you want to change the appearance of the reference links, you want to change the CSS for  in Common.css. The only thing differt here is that wel have , which may explain the different appearance. —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your patient. I've tried doing what you told me, but no results... :(


 * I've made an example to show it you: The first text was written using english wiki. The second one (down), in asturian wiki. You can see an small difference in distance between the number and the upper line.




 * This short distance makes it difficult to read, and that's what I try to change it, and use the same settings that you use in english wiki. I hope you can help me this time ;) Thanks in advance --Astur (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edit to Common.css was correct, but it takes up to five minutes for the changes to take effect. Your current value of 0.3em places the ref tags too low. You should always wait for 5 minutes, then purge any page you are viewing to see if it works. To test code faster, place the code in your personal Common.css first. Changes made to your personal CSS are immediate. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 23:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much!! You're right! XD --Astur (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you help improve a .JS gadget at Wikidata?
Hi there. I was wondering whether you would be able to help create some code for a d: .JS gadget which would make the gadget check for (and hence prevent) double full stops and double user signatures (discussion here)? I'm contacting you because of your work editing MediaWiki:Common.js, which I hope means that you will have the relevant skills needed to help out here. Thanks in advance.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  12:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Handheld.css
Hi Edokter. There's an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Handheld.css to delete the corresponding css page, because it is apparently not being used anywhere. I'm not really comfortable making the edit myself - could you take a look at it, if you have a spare moment? I would really appreciate it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted. It hasn't been used since MobileFrontend was deployed. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

TAFI
Hi! When you synchronized Main Page/Tomorrow and Main Page/Yesterday, you replaced the day+1 and day-1 TAFI code with the normal code from Main Page. Fortunately, due to the creation of Today's articles for improvement/Protection, we no longer rely on Main Page/Tomorrow for TAFI's cascading protection. I'm just letting you know for future reference (if/when synchronizing the pages again).

Also, I just replied to your message at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement.

Thanks! —David Levy 01:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason I took out the code is because I feel that the core FAFI logic should not be there. Is there a possibility you can move that logic to a separate template? Also, I did not intend to have "TOMORROW" in the comments, mainly because it makes synchronizing already harder then it is. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, you intentionally eliminated the TAFI offsets? In the future, please mention such changes in your edit summaries.
 * That seems undesirable, as the pages' purpose is to present tomorrow's and yesterday's main page content to the extent that's feasible. Main Page/Tomorrow is particularly important, as it serves to warn editors when tomorrow's transclusions are missing.  (You removed an explicit notification of that.)
 * I see no harm in moving the TAFI logic to templates. But out of curiosity, how is this beneficial?  The code still will differ from that of Main Page (and require manual replacement when performing a synchronization).
 * I can understand why maintaining the "TOMORROW" comments might not be worth the effort, but I didn't understand the basis of your separate edit to remove them. (Again, an informative summary would have been helpful.)  I don't how know a preemptive change (as opposed to simply allowing the comments to be replaced when copying over the code from Main Page) makes things easier, but okay.  —David Levy 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It means I have to manually compare and edit more then necessary to restore any code that is diferent from the actual main page, in a process that is already laborious and lengthy. Moving the logic to a separate (or main template with a +1 parameter) will eliviate that process; the cascading protection will remain in place. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 09:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I see no harm (and I'm more than happy to accommodate your efforts). I don't quite understand how it's easier to copy and paste one set of non-Main Page code than it is the other, but I'll take your word for it.
 * I realize that the cascading protection is unaffected (but as I mentioned, it's no longer necessary in the case of TAFI).
 * Transcluding the normal weekly subpage wih a "+1 day" or "-1 day" parameter appended doesn't work. (The dates aren't hard-coded; on any given day, yesterday's/today's/tomorrow's subpages contain exactly the same calls.)  —David Levy 08:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Rotate-left
Hi Edokter, why do you want to keep this template? It's unused and rotate offers the exact same functionality (plus allows for arbitrary rotation angles). You wrote "this is a test template for IE 8 and below" but the current code explicitly does not work in IE 8 and below. Besides that test templates are better off in the userspace anyway, aren't they? Regards --Patrick87 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I got mixed up with vertical text; that was the IE test template, which you changed to use rotate. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 08:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could explain how can be used with IE 8 and below. Actually it already works with more modern browsers (as  does), but not IE 8. Therefore it isn't really an IE 8 test template, is it? --Patrick87 (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is; it requires companion CSS (hence the class ms-rotate-left) that uses a different method (rotate filter) that is compatible with IE8. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And were can one find this companion CSS? Can one use it in Wikipedia? Does one have to put it in global or personal common.css? It would be helpful if you update the documentation for these cases, otherwise no one will be able to actually use it for IE 8 and below. --Patrick87 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The CSS is posted on vertical text. It should ideally go in Common.css. However, I found too many incompatibilities to make it working for general use. But, for vertical headers in tables I do have it working, so I intend to make a template to facilitate those. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Coments in templates
Hi, you just stripped out comments from the template rotate (again). What for? They get stripped from the output in all cases I'm aware off (and even if they weren't, this wasn't a big deal since it didn't hurt anything). Is there any case I'm not aware of or were you just overcautious in this case? Actually it's common to use comments in many templates and I'm not aware of any issues this could cause. --Patrick87 (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments inside CSS blocks tend to bleed through in certain cases, and should always avoided inside CSS. I have had trouble in the past in such cases, so yes, I am cautious. Documentation should be done on the documentation page anyway. I will remove them again. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have some examples? It's not that I do not trust you, but I want to learn about these cases. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not off-hand. But there have been many instances where the parser lets parts of inline CSS through where it shouldn't because it confuses the comments with common wiki markup, especially where common wiki markup characters are used. Linebreaks are especially bad, as thoose cause the CSS to be non-functional. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, please let me know if you find any information regarding the issues you mentioned. A quick Google search didn't yield any results. As you may have noticed I've used the comments in particular to hide the linebreaks which is common in many templates. --Patrick87 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of derviative works templates
As the leading editor in terms of edit count of A Christmas Carol, I am alerting you to the discussion about the use of derivative works templates in author bio articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. We are discussing whether they should be removed from or collapsed or left alone in the author's articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

embedding infoboxes and sidebars
since you know so much about CSS, it would be great if you could comment in this thread. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Portal 2 heading
If you wanted to know, there was a redirect from Perpetual Testing Initiative, which I've fixed in light of the issue. --Addict 2006 01:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Using edit summaries can help a great deal in the future. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Link to documentation from the Gadgets preferences
Hey, I meant to ask this awhile ago but forgot. Can you edit the MediaWiki:Gadget-Notification file to link to the doc page? I realize most people will get to the preferences from the doc page, not the other way around, but best-practices and all that.  Ignatz mice•talk 01:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Another minor change: "How to disable this pop-up?" Also, a good compromise leaves everyone upset.  Ignatz mice•talk 13:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'm not sure how to interpret that... :) — Edokter  ( talk ) — 09:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, I see a double meaning now I didn't before... :) I only meant it hadn't been broken until recently... Rd232 talk 11:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

animations
I see the gadget refers to animations in the interface - I may have mistakenly thought it also applied to the bouncing globe people use, and things of that sort. But I consider scrolling or blinking text both animations. I don't know what the gadget catches or can or should catch--after all, some animations serve a purpose in illustrating motion or highlighting something in an graphic. My apologies if I misunderstood.  DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.js
Why is this necessary? If there's something wrong with MediaWiki's behavior here, please have it fixed in MW, not here. Matma Rex talk 17:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been on the bug report since 2004; see . --  Gadget850talk 18:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mean the gadget, I mean the hack Edokter inserted, to which I linked. Matma Rex talk 18:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The top icons were overlapping the edit link when the edit link is right-alinged (float:right) in the Monobook skin. My edit corrected that fault, which is in the edittop gadget, not MediaWiki. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. Matma Rex talk 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

ip adress
If I create accounts, do administrators know my ip address? How to know my ip address if I create accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fceefyahoo.ca (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Administrators cannot see IP addresses from accounts. Only users with checkuser rights can see them. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for reinstating the neutral version of that sentence. Much appreciated. Having multiple admins agree on that edit should suffice. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 11:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal at TAFI talk
A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at: Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Full protection at Doctor Who
You made a controversial edit on a Fully Protected article. Admin tools were not designed to distort the integrity of the policies. I will ask you now to self revert please.-- JOJ Hutton  11:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it controversial? Was my edit in any way related content dispute that sparked the protection? No it wasn't. I removed unsourced information that was not part of the content dispute, so your request is without grounds. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 11:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * YOU don't get to make the decision on what is and is not controversial. When you make the edit you are making it as an editor, not an admin, but using your admin tools to bypass a full protection, while other editors are locked out of the article, distorts the integrity of the policy and will only ultimately lead to further notice board threads.-- JOJ Hutton  11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An edit becomes controversial when it is disputed. If you dispute the content of the edit, then say so. Right now, you only complain about policy, not the content, so I have no incination to revert anything. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't let pride become the structure of ones downfall. And given the current climate at WT:FULL, I wouldn't be tempting fate at this time. Yes my complaint is that admins have right to edit fully protected articles when others cannot. You are no more privileged of an editor than anyone else. JOJ  Hutton  12:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The content had already been disputed at User talk:Doczilla. You are an involved editor, and are using your admin tools to bypass protection. The edit is controversial as it has not been discussed on the talk page. It is not "fair game" to make edits such as this.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

wp:ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up! Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Docs!
Hiyo. Just a gentle nudge/reminder, that I said in my support, "Just remember to update the docs at Customizing watchlists" ... >.>  ;P

It might also be a good idea to add a link to that documentation section (once it's updated) or to the VPR thread, in the "shown with a green bullet" notice within our watchlists, at least temporarily. (So that people who want to disable it can do so with great ease, and without hunting around and building up a head of steam). Ttfn, –Quiddity (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
For fixing my CSS - I thought I had more there than necessary. That's not a bad idea to have for the watchlist, but the color was a little much because some colors tend to trigger headaches. Apparently that's one of them. Victoria (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:VPT#Need help at Template:Commons and category-inline
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPT. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

IE 9 missing horizontal scrollbar
When I visited Comparison_of_WAMPs using IE 9, I noticed that the WAMP comparison table overflowed yet there was no horizontal scrollbar. Apparently, this was due to User:Tom-'s horizontal scrollbar fix for IE: MediaWiki:Common.js/IEFixes.js. I'm notifying you since User:Tom- seems to be inactive and you have made the most recent edits to IEFixes.js. 68.69.56.204 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have IE9 to test. You could ask at MediaWiki talk:Common.js. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 08:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding things to common.css
Hi Edokter,

you should've learned after the fiasco with the removed "changed after my last visit" text, but you have just done it again! You put custom CSS into common.css to color the thank links on history pages in green.

This is not acceptable. Such changes to common.css need consent. If you don't like the current appearance, then change your personal common.css. But don't edit the global common.css to fit your needs. I don't like the way you're using your admin rights to change things to your preferences. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I undid the addition of green for now. History and diff pages are seriously high visibility pages, and we can't just be adding new color and styles will-nilly. There are several active discussions ongoing about the thanks button, so it's not like it will be hard to bring it to people's attention. Steven Walling &bull; talk   17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Verdana bug
you reverted my edit saying it wouldn’t be a bug – how so? obviously it’s an oversight that was fixed in later versions like Verdana Pro or Meiryo. — flying sheep 22:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist bold behavior
Hi.

So i noticed you dealt with the whole watchlist bolding/bulleting thing. there was recently a complaint from a user (see Village pump (technical)), saying that even though (s)he unchecked the "bolding" preference, the unread pages are still showing in bold. i tried it myself, and everything seems to be working as advertised. some further discussion led me to believe that this user is using IE, so i fired up this annoying browser, and what do you know? with IE, the "watchlist bolding" selection in preferences does not seem to have any effect (tested with IE 10, with and without "compatibility mode"). i did not investigate any further, but i thought you might want to know. thanks, peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Articles with attributed pull quotes
Category:Articles with attributed pull quotes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

YGM
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Unorthodox (Joey Badass song)
There is an AfD template placed in the headline. Can you please close the discussion as 1 voted delete and 4 voted keep. I am asking you to close it because you are an administrator. Also, the page has reached C-class as an article. Thanks!  11Block  | talk  00:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't appreciate the removal of my comment
I just wanted to drop a note and let you know I didn't appreciate the removal of my comment. You may have started that discussion but you don't have the right to remove comments by other users. No one cares if admins violate policy so there's no point in complaining but I wanted to let you know I didn't appreciate it.Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I don't appriciate a conversation I started to be hijacked in order to post completely unrelated comments off the bat. I don't like VE either, but I'm trying to post something constructive. The last thing I need is someone else trumping my thread and then run the risk of the original subject becoming completely obscured. The removal was entirely justified. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 22:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it isn't related. You said VE should be turned off on certain pages. I stated it should be turned off by default on all pages until it works. They are related terms. But anyway, it doesn't matter because the WMF doesn't care what either of us or anyone else thinks. They are completely disinterested in what any of us have to say unless we want to tell them good job. They don't want comments, advice or help. The sooner you and the rest of the community realize it the better. Because as long as we are willing to clean up their mess, then they will keep making them. Besides that this is Wikipedia...its not your thread. Kumioko (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Pie chart
Hi. Can you take a look at the pie chart on this page - on Wiki-cy, please? As you can see, there's a flaw somewhere. It works fine on the corresponding Wiki-en. Many thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll need to add the following css to cy:Mediawiki:Common.css. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who Live
Hi, I was under the impression that Doctor Who Live was a Doctor Who special and not a completely new show. It it is a special Doctor Who episode, which I think it is, then quotation marks should be used. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 13:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not an episode in the sense of a filmed story, rather a documentary like Doctor Who Confidential. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page
Hi could we change mobile code on Main Page from mp to mf please because it is the new code in the extension 86.159.27.62 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No we cannot, not before analysing impact. There may be users who have styling applied to the old IDs, and that will break if we change them. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style Edits
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Content_changes. I am politely asking you to revert your edit to my content (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&action=history), and instead discuss on the talk page. Edit warring is not a productive way of discussing this. Sovetus (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit was reverted twice. That alone should have signalled you that your edit had no consensus. By reinstating your edit, you are the one edit-warring. I have no opinion on the contents of the edit, but you behaviour triggered my revert. Rule of thumb: if your edit is reverted, take it to the talk page. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

IPA font
Hi,

You were involved in discussions about fonts in Common.css and Common.js in the past. Things have changed now and we have web fonts. Can you please take a look at MediaWiki talk:Common.css?

Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Category contents summary
Please see Village pump (technical). I would have liked to have blanked the pages instead of deleting them, but the continued existence of the pages appeared to interfere with a full return to the previous format. Of course, if there is consensus for the change, I would be happy to restore the pages at once. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page redesign
Hi Edokter,

I think we would have better luck making progress if we separated the framework ideas from the redesign ideas. I would strongly suggest that you start a new proposal, and create a mockup where you implement the current Main Page exactly how it is using your new framework. Once we get editors to understand the flexibility of the framework, it will open up new possibilities and they will be less resistant to other changes. Then we can call another RFC for ideas, and to start moving things around. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 16:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Toolserver https
Hi,

Why do you say that the toolserver doesn't have https? Have you even tried it? This link is actually a Web redirection to this https address. --Rinaku (t · [//toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=rinaku#en.wikipedia.org c]) 10:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first link directs me right to the http page, and the link on the SUL userbox redirects me back to the HTTP page. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 11:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there is indeed no redirection from http to https; I thought there was because of a browser extension I have. However, if you replace http by https in the adresses you have or simply click on the https adress I gave you, you can see that the toolserver does support https. Therefore why not use it? --Rinaku (t · [//toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=rinaku#en.wikipedia.org c]) 12:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I get thrown back to HTTP whn clicking on the SUL box link. I guess https is only supported by some tools. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * https://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Edokter . Would this link be okay with you? --Rinaku (t · [//toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=rinaku#en.wikipedia.org c]) 14:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That should work. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 14:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) --Rinaku (t · [//toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=rinaku#en.wikipedia.org c]) 14:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to fail loading the associated CSS (trying to load it non-secure); toolserver is just not fully https aware, so better stick with http for now. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 14:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. I didn't notice; it works in my browser. Well, OK. --Rinaku (t · [//toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=rinaku#en.wikipedia.org c]) 14:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Tq
Hello! I'm writing regarding. When I transcoded the template last night, I noticed that the shade of green had been reverted to the one that you'd used originally. I found this problematic, as it caused the quoted text to blend in with the black text from which it's intended to stand out. So I examined the edit history and saw your note regarding WP:CONTRAST. I take accessibility very seriously and was unaware that the shade I'd selected did not reach WCAG 2.0's AAA level when displayed on our talk pages. So I downloaded the recommended application and used it to determine the brightest shade of green that passed with a rating of "AAA". The difference is slight (and I wish that a brighter shade could be used without reducing accessibility), but it was an improvement. I was disappointed to find that you reverted again, for reasons that I don't quite understand. You wrote that there was "no noticeable difference". I wouldn't have bothered to perform the edit if I didn't find the difference noticeable. If you don't notice a difference, that's fine, but it seems like a reason to not revert. You also expressed a desire to "keep this in sync with all other quote/example templates", and I'm unclear as to why this is important. On the template's talk page, someone has opined that the color should differ from that used in xt. (I assume that he/she had a greater difference in mind, of course.) In any case, I have no objection to harmonizing all of the relevant templates on #006600 (and would regard this as an improvement, as the slightly greater contrast with black would be helpful across the board). Thanks in advance for your consideration. —David Levy 15:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's see the difference: This is #006400. This is #006600. The difference is only 2/256 (0.8%) on the green channel; not even the hardest trained color specialist will see the difference. #006400 is also a web color, which allows converting to X11 color names (easy in CSS debugging). With that in mind, the change was ineffective and unnecessary. What may also be of interest is this typography audit showing a multitude of different font sizes. This also goes for font colors. Less is better. Adding yet another new font color will only add to the pollution. I hope this helps. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not a color specialist, but I see the difference (as I noted above). It isn't a dramatic difference, of course; either shade is closer to black than would be ideal (if not for the accessibility concern), but #006600 mitigates the problem to a modest (yet non-negligible) extent.  I'm sure that this depends upon the users' eyes and display (and I don't dispute your statement that you perceive no difference on your end), but what's the harm in using #006600 instead of #006400?
 * I realize that, but how is it relevant to this particular application?
 * In my previous reply, I suggested switching to #006600 in all of the relevant templates. —David Levy 17:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but how is it relevant to this particular application?
 * In my previous reply, I suggested switching to #006600 in all of the relevant templates. —David Levy 17:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In my previous reply, I suggested switching to #006600 in all of the relevant templates. —David Levy 17:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what display you are using, but if set to anything less the true color, you may see the effects of you display snapping to the nearest color it can handle, which may be perceivable. But for the rest it is not. Using web colors helps manage styling a great deal. If a color is so close to a named color, we should use that value. This also prevents the color 'snapping' you may observe, which result in inconsistant display bewteen users. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 17:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I just confirmed that my display is set to "True Color".
 * How does it help in this instance? (To be clear, this is a sincere question, not an argument.)
 * I'd also like to address WP:CONTRAST's application to this situation. Unquestionably, the advice is valid throughout Wikipedia.  We're to "ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible", but "when feasible" is subject to interpretation.
 * In this instance, the template's purpose is to differentiate quoted material from adjacent text (which usually is black), thereby aiding readers' comprehension. #008000 (a Web color, I'll note) stands out from black text to a significantly greater extent than #006400 or #006600 does.  Its contrast with #F8FCFF (our talk pages' background color) is 4.98:1, which far exceeds the AA level's 4.5:1 minimum ratio (the standard that we "should" satisfy in all cases).
 * In my view, the benefit provided via the use of #006400 or #006600 doesn't offset the detriment; the greatly decreased visual differentiation reduces messages' readability for users with or without visual impairments.
 * As noted above, this isn't a matter that I take lightly, and I would never place aesthetics before accessibility. (For the record, both my mother and grandmother suffer from macular degeneration.)  —David Levy 18:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view, the benefit provided via the use of #006400 or #006600 doesn't offset the detriment; the greatly decreased visual differentiation reduces messages' readability for users with or without visual impairments.
 * As noted above, this isn't a matter that I take lightly, and I would never place aesthetics before accessibility. (For the record, both my mother and grandmother suffer from macular degeneration.)  —David Levy 18:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Tau (deletion)
I'm not sure you should have corrected typos in a closed deletion discussion, even if those typos created redlinks. But that's just my opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it facilitates me in deleting spurious redirects (probably created because of that typo), then no harm can come from correcting those links. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand the reason for "revision 579524777"
Hello,

I don't understand why you undid my revision to the 10th Doctor's Appearance section for four reasons:

1) The stated reason for the undo action was "out of scope." Yet, the scope of the section is the Doctor's Appearance (see the subsection title).  Isn't the Doctor's footwear part of how he appears?  (After all the discussion, itself was already there and still remains.)

2) The reason I gave for my update was: "Match other reference to the Doctor's footwear."

Earlier in the document (specifically the "Personality" section) there was another reference to Doctor's footwear. The line reads: "such as wearing plimsolls (trainers)"  thus matching seems within scope given earlier the document equates the two. If it is not proper at the point I added the word plimsolls, is it valid at the earlier point and if not, should the earlier point be corrected ?

3) From an American's point of view I thought Converse Chuck Taylor shoes were plimsolls and not trainers. Nike basketball shoes are trainers, while Chucks are more like plimsolls.  Thus reading the first occurrence made sense to me they are plimsolls with trainers as a after thought ("plimsolls (trainers)").  On the other hand the second reference (the one I changed) wasn't clear and is why I updated it to match the previous occurrence.  The goal in providing this update was to help clarify this point.

4) I reviewed several Doctor Who websites and their discussions of his Appearance. I found the American sites using the word sneakers, but the UK sites using both plimsolls and trainers.  There was no real uniformity.

Finally, I was thinking about changing both references to say the word sneakers, which UK/American dictionaries show as a synonyms for plimsolls and trainers. I decided against this course of action given Doctor Who is an UK based series. Thus by retaining the original wording in the first section, it would provide the correct content for the second.

NOTE: I also considered that the first reference should be enough and any subsequent using either word would work. I rejected this viewpoint based upon past experiences when a table of content exists. Readers can and do use the TOC to skip to the specific section. If a wording depends upon a previous reference, then a reference to the previous one should exist. As adding the word "(plimsolls)" would be cleaner, I went with this approach.

I spent a good deal of time on researching this point before adding the word and this is why the issue is important enough to bring it up now. (As for explaining all of this in the "Edit Summary," I've been told to keep it brief as it should be obvious. Given the change is about his appearance, I never thought I would need to justify why it was "in scope."

Hopefully, you'll agree and undo the undo or help me understand why the various points I bring up are wrong.

Thank you, Bert. --Bmoshier (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

SidebarTranslate
I'm assuming you see the issue too but just in case, your change is causing the translation to fail for several languages. I'm not sure what you're trying to do exactly though. equazcion  →  12:20, 3 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of which links fail? I tried only to make the main link display in the defaul font. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure which languages they are as I can't read them, but check George Washington. Some Arabic, Sanskrit, and Russian- esque languages are showing up in their native characters. equazcion   →  12:24, 3 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not my doing; those links have no entries in the list, or are misdetected, so there are not replaced. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops -- You're right, sorry about that. I only tested after your change and assumed that's what caused it, apologies. equazcion   →  12:33, 3 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem :) — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Plang
Plang is the div, not the UL. equazcion  →  20:31, 9 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird... I really see  in the unmodified HTML. Is monobook different? —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I see too. But my plang variable is taking the id "p-lang" (not "p-lang-list"), which is the div surrounding the whole thing (the UL and the "Languages" header etc). equazcion   →  20:38, 9 Nov 2013 (UTC)
 * I realized there's no need to grab anything BUT the UL so I changed it. It now does just grab the UL at the top. equazcion   →  21:12, 9 Nov 2013 (UTC)

.hlist
Hi, https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/96071/ needs you :) Your hlist code is implictly released on CC BY-SA license, which is technically incompatible with MW license – please confirm on the patch that you agree to dual-license it on GNU GPL v2+ or any other compatible license (such as the MIT License). (I assume that you do not mind that in general :) ) Matma Rex talk 22:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What a mess :) Should be resolved now. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 22:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

About The Fires of Pompeii
Oh, but it does. -- Raykyogrou0 ( Talk ) 09:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello? I thought you wanted to discuss this.  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 07:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of TFL on the main page
Following on from a conversation in which you participated over a year ago, a new discussion regarding the Expansion of TFL on the main page has been started. Your views on this matter would be appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Rose (Doctor Who)
The Rose (Doctor Who) article to which you have significantly contributed, has been listed as a Good Article.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(Undid revision 584964850 by Shalroth (talk) Sorry, too speculative)
You're absolutely right - I haven't heard anything formal on this from the writing staff or the actors. It just made so much sense when we saw it though... and in TEOT They mention that The Doctor has 'The Moment...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalroth (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

hlist
This note is prompted by the discussion about the "mediawiki.hlist" proposal.

I've been steadily working my way through Category:Navigational boxes without horizontal lists to convert as many as possible to use hlist formatting. These are the more difficult cases, requiring some thought/investigation or additional work, which were skipped by the editors doing the mass conversion a while ago. There are now less than 1,000 left in the cat, and I believe that most of these can be converted. The main exceptions are where Navbox is being used as a wrapper for a table, an image, a timeline or similar objects (and so isn't really a navigational box at all) and a small number where there is a genuine, legitimate need to list the items vertically.

There are only two possible objections I know of to the use of hlist: one is obsolete browsers (esp IE8), which hopefully will go away at some point in the not too distant future. The other is that there may be a need for an alternative to the bullet as the separator character. I was initially sceptical of the need for a different separator character, but in going through these navboxes have become aware of cases where it makes sense to use a different character. The main candidates are:


 * m-dash (typically for railway line navboxes, but there are others);
 * left arrow, right arrow, and the symbol for equilibrium in chemical reactions (typically technical and scientific topics, where there is a definite "flow" to the articles);

So far, I have held off converting navboxes where these separators are appropriate (though it would not be difficult to do so, if one accepts the loss of some visual information).

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the feasibility of extending hlist to use different separator characters, or possible alternatives if you don't think it worthwhile to change common.css. I mention it now just in case it might have an effect on your reaction to the mediawiki.hlist proposal. Please reply on this page, which is on my watchlist.

--NSH002 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page Design
Are you interested in having an uninvolved editor make a formal close of this discussion? -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PS please ping me when you respond. Thanks!! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Image in infobox for the Doctor article
Re, it appears the question of the image to have in the infobox had some discussion on the article talk page at Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who). I have no personal preference on which location contains the imagemap of all the faces, just wanted to point out the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Doctor who specials
Hey, I noticed you undid my move of the doctor who specials pages. I'll probably make a move request sometime soon, but I was curious about your argument. I don't see anywhere in the MOSWHO that discusses the naming of the specials pages. As of now, it is written as though the subject of the article is not on the specials, but that specials is the disambiguation, which seems kind of misleading. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for misquoting MOS:WHO, the actual MOS is at WP:TVSEASON. All series' pages are titled like this: Doctor Who (season 1) through Doctor Who (season 26) and Doctor Who (series 1) through Doctor Who (season 7) and everything in between, including the those series that only have specials.; they all follow the same naming convention. This is also true for many other TV series, ie. Family Guy (season 12). I son't see why specials seasons would be any different. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 09:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of an RfC
The previous discussion regarding an extension of TFLs on the front page in which you commented, has moved on to an RfC on the Main Page. Your comments and suggestions are once again welcome on this issue. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Font size
Thank you for your work on this. I really appreciate this from a reading standpoint and being able to direct people to the statement. Bgwhite (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 22:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Help:Displaying a formula: (Undid revision 588052156 by Adam majewski (talk) Looks nowhere near a repeating fraction (in MathJax)) (undo | thank)
Hi. I do not understand your reason for undid. Can you describe it other words ? Regards. --Adam majewski (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your example actually denoted a repeating decimal, which is indicated by an overbar. Your example however pushed the repeating decimals too far down; there is probably a better suited notation for that. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only decimal but also other like binary fractions can be repeating. Thus notation is important, but it is not described how to do it . Why ? --Adam majewski (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Brackets
This is why I requested replacing ⟨+⟩ with angbr. We've had long, long discussions about the problem, trying to work out exactly what's going wrong. By using a template rather than the brackets (which I originally added to js), we can update all the articles as we come up with better fixes. — kwami (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

TFL
Thanks dude, for everything you've done to make it happen, both back in the day and in weeks to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Some JS related help
Hi,

I have been trying to get this script implemented which would display our chess games in a better fashion that which we currently have. Kipod has already got a script working in the testwiki, the documentation of which can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess. Do you have time to and could you please check the script out so we can know what needs to be changed and what should be done before it can be suited to become a gadget? IF you can suggest anyone who can help, it will be great too.

Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

numbers rfc
I just closed the numbers RFC, then saw your comment saying you had a conclusion. If you agree with my close then no issue. If you disagree lemme know what your reasoning was and well see what to do about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would go with Numb3rs, because WP:TITLETM (Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark, which is definitely the case here) is policy, while MOS:TM is a guideline and merely an extension of that policy. The title of a TV show is also primarely the title of a work, not that primarely of a trademark, and in that regard, the literal spelling is commonly used. Albums titles ususally follow this convention (for example Straight Outta Lynwood). — Edokter  ( talk ) — 10:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a wider RFC to try and resolve the conflict between MOS and RSGaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Columns related CSS for French WP
Hello, on the French common.css discussion page I suggested a solution to a question asked about references split into 2 columns with 2 short items on the right and 1 on the left, though it should be the other way round like on the English WP: by trial-and-error I found out that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=577332265&oldid=prev this modification] you made last October (followed by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=586180391&oldid=prev this one] last December) answers the question. Now it seems that French admins do not understand more than I do why this is necessary and how it works, could you please explain it there? (In English since most French admins know English and I will summarize in French for everybody's sake, or of course you can write in French if you know French.) Thank you! Oliv0 (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I found the explanation in what you said here: Template talk:Div col. Oliv0 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Portal header
The links at Portal:Contents/TOC navbar are barely readable now. What was wrong with the way it was, in which people can actually read the text? Northamerica1000(talk) 23:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't design the buttons. I only made the buttons work with the new styling after the old styling was no longer available. See MediaWiki talk:Common.js. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 01:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please help me for editing in wikipedia
Please help me for editing in wikipedia by Bheem26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bheem26 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please help me for editing in wikipedia                            by                                  Bheem26  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bheem26 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRION
Thanks for reviving WP:BRION with the "Tech News", I was just about to replace the target talk page redirect by a suggestion to add a "Tech News" subscription (list on Meta) for the project page, some MediaWiki issue stopped me long enough to see your text. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 8)
This series (being made in 2014) of Doctor Who is being made on video and not on film. There is a distinction. For a series that has so far employed both methods extensively, it is important to make that distinction. For someone to report that "Filming has begun on the new series" is simply inaccurate.

Worse than that, to revert an edit that corrects this to "Recording" is nonsensical, especially when done with some such justification as "oh well it's a euphemism for recording". No it isn't. It's at best what lazy or uninformed people use to refer to the process when they either don't know the difference or don't think the distinction is important. Even if an edit changing "filming" to "recording" is seen as nit-picky or pedantic, to change it back is just increasing the inaccuracy for no benefit. Please desist. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , you should know better then to battle over this; you have been reverted not just by me. "Filming" is a perfectly good description here, especially since the producers are aiming for the 'filmed' effect. In today's digital world, where big blockbuster movies are shot RED cameras which stores its material on flashcards, there is no destiction between filmed/recoreded. But the latter implies recording audio and we're not talking albums here. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 08:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Day of the Doctor
I don't want to start an argument, so I thought I would lay out my reasoning for wanting to list Billie Piper as playing the Moment here on your talk page.

Understand, I don't want to list her as only playing the Moment, however, listing her as Rose Tyler/The Moment is an acceptable compromise. It is a fact that she was playing a sentient machine, and not Rose as we know her. The fact that it is clarified elsewhere in the article is no reason to credit her incorrectly in the infobox.

Hopefully we will be able to come to a satisfactory compromise.

Respectfully, G S Palmer (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , she is correctly credited in the infobox, becuase that is how she is credited in the episodes credits. Please read the talk page (and its archives). This has been discussed and consensus has always been to list the characters as credited in the infobox and add additional information in the article itself. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 15:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked, and I can't really agree with you. For one thing, most of those discussions took place before or directly after broadcast, so people hadn't really had time to decide.  For another, there really seems to be no concrete consensus - more of an even split of opinions.  Quite a few people seem of the opinion that she was playing the Moment, and not Rose Tyler.  G S Palmer (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not how I read it. Consensus was to follow guidelines. WP:MOSWHO and MOS:TV will explain in more detail how articles are built and what goes in the infobox. In short: infoboxes shall only contain directly sourced information from the credits. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I won't start an edit war. But I still think that there really was no verifiable consensus.  How about if we take this discussion to the talk page and see what other editors have to say?  That way we could settle the issue in a finalistic matter.  G S Palmer (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are free to bring it up there, but I'm sure it doesn't change anything. If there is no consensus to change, we always stick with the guidelines. That's why they're there. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Open call to join the Individual Engagement Grants Committee
Hi Edokter! The Wikimedia Foundation and the Individual Engagement Grants Committee invite you to join us to help review proposals for grants of up to $30,000 to support 6-month projects that improve the Wikimedia community. These grants fund individuals or small teams to organize, build, create, research or facilitate something that enhances the work of Wikimedia’s volunteers.

If you'd like to get involved, please add yourself as a candidate for the IEG Committee by Sunday 9 March 2014. Hope to see you there! --Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 07:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Section editing reflinks idea
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13. This is an idea that I think may interest you and would love to hear your feedback on. Thanks! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons images on the main page
Hello! When transcluding a Commons image on the main page, please remember to first upload a local copy and tag it with the uploaded from Commons template. Otherwise, it will not be protected until KrinkleBot detects the transclusion and updates Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en to enable cascading protection at Commons, which can take anywhere from minutes to 12 hours or more. (I've manually protected File:Jimi Hendrix thumbnail.jpg at Commons, so no further action is needed at this time.) Thank you. —David Levy 14:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll remember that. I was thinking about doing so, but noticed the original image also had no local copy, and wasn't protected on Commons either. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 14:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was cascade-protected at Commons via the aforementioned Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en page. (KrinkleBot also watches Main Page/Tomorrow.)  Thanks again!  —David Levy 14:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert.js
Hi, whatever you recently did to MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert.js, it's seriously broken. Clicking any link acts as if the link were clicked twice; i.e. clicking <nowiki ></nowiki> yields <nowiki ><nowiki ></nowiki></nowiki>. This is in Monobook. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vector too. I'll investigate. See also MediaWiki talk:Edittools. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 17:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ohhh!!! That is what you meant when you said double... I'm hopping on the bus back to school in a few minutes, but I'll take a look as soon as I get there if it is not already resolved. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been resolved already. But thanks anyway. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 8) and List of Doctor Who Serials
According to this website, which is cited on Doctor Who (series 8) as the reference for the information that Paul Murphy will direct episode 3, he will direct episode 6 as well. Is it worth expanding the table of episodes to include this, even though we don't know who the writer will be yet? Thanks! G S Palmer (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Edokter/Main_Page
I'm not sure if there's a right place for this, but I must say that I like what I see so far with your mainpage redesign. The general style is quite nice, and the direction (divs, non-inline styles, etc) is definitely a good one to go in, but if anything, I'd say it currently is it isn't ambitious enough. For instance, I wanted to try to give it a poke with some css tweaks, but the templates as they currently are kind of prevented it. Have you considered redoing more of those as well? And it's not just for the css, either - in a lot of the lists, shorter list items for ITN and OTD would probably go a long way toward improving their use at a glance, and the featured article blurb is often a pretty massive block of text as well (and a very wide one on larger screens, which can pose some readability issues). (Yes, I know a redesign wouldn't be able to enforce a change in how people write those, but it could be a good place to demonstrate a possible improvement, especially in a layout that would be particularly improved by it, which I think this is.)

Also the featured picture template is dumb. It looks less dumb here than it does on the current mainpage, but it's still dumb. It doesn't use the space well at all - the image itself is tall, the info is long... would there be any way to change it into a vertical element and work that into the rest of it as a column, with info underneath the image? Getting that more toward the top could also be useful in general, since a lot of those pictures are pretty eye-catching. We shouldn't be hiding them away like that.

Just some thoughts. I hope it helps. -— Isarra ༆ 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You should post these thoughts on the village pump. You're right, I have no control over the content; those are handled by their respective projects. As far as POTD goes, it automatically switches to text under the image when an image is over 400px wide. There is no way for me to detect how it will be presented, so I am bould by the current design. Today's picture is high, others will be very wide. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Which one? And what good would it do when things usually just maybe get some argument and then fall off and get archived? There has to be a better way to handle the images, though. How does it automatically switch if it can't be detected? -— Isarra ༆ 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Compare Template:POTD protected/2014-03-08 and Template:POTD protected/2014-03-14. Those are the pages that get transcluded on the main page. Since they are templates I cannot extract any data; all I get is a table with an image and text. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 08:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reflist
Your edit to Reflist is now adding a blank line on every page where this is transcluded! At least from what I'm seeing. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * True. See comment at Template talk:Reflist. Nurg (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed it too, so I . -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoniverse
41.132.179.212 is attempting to modify this article to fit their own view of what the term means. For them, this means blanking large sections of the text. I have tried reverting them, which has led them to accuse me of vandalism. Do you think that you could help out so I don't have to pass the 3 revert rule? This user bears great similarities to a user who tried to do something similar over at Master (Doctor Who). I have reported them at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thanks! G S Palmer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a long lengthy, in-depth discussion about this. Eventually I was told to. Since then User:GraemeLeggett] and I have significantly improved the article. However [User:G S Palmer] recently appeared, reinstated walls of unsourced text, and even removed [[WP:RS that [User:GraemeLeggett]] and I had added. He/she also refuses to engage in the discussions on the discussions page. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's an actual quote from User:Edokter ''Read the talk page, read WP:RS, read WP:OR, read WP:SYNTHESIS, then read the talk page again. Repeat until you understand the reason why this text *cannot* remain.'' This seems applicable to User:G S Palmer and his unsourced essay on the Whoniverse article. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, cool it down, both of you. This is a content dispute, plain and simple. Although it does appear that 41..212 is removing unsourced material, so GS, you should be carefull to do a blanket revert which also removed added information, which was sourced. Also GS, please read up on WP:RS; we are not dealing in "views", we should only add information that can be verified by reliable sources. So look carefully what is removed, and if you disagree with some of it, state your concerns on the talk page. —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is, whenever you try to reason it out on the talk page, this user launches into a two-page rant. He/she did it at Talk:Master and he/she is now doing it here.  It is very hard to reason with him/her because he/she has a fixed set of ideas and will go to almost any length to prove that he/she is right.  G S Palmer (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I never made two page rants. I merely stated the facts unambiguously. However, here are some questions for you:

1)Why do you insist on adding walls of completely unsourced text. Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BURDEN.

2)Why did you remove the WP:RS that User:GraemeLeggett and I added to the article?

3)Did you actually read any of the discussion that had been going on before you chose to reinstate the unsourced material and delete the new WP:RS? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have seen enough. I am going to revert GS. Then you can both work on adding sourced information (even if it comes out of the page history). This is known as an 'article reset'. Any information added must be sourced, otherwise it cannot be included. That is the best way an article can grow in quality. So, no more blanket reverts please! — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Its good to have another opinion on the matter. I wasn't deeply invested in the page, I just noticed that someone was removing vast amounts of long-standing material.  If you think his edits were constructive, I'll go with your descision and will gladly offer to help flesh out the article in question.  G S Palmer (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This unregistered user has been behaving appallingly from the start, constantly hectoring everyone, marking as vandalism edits they don't like and even at one point reverting all my most recent edits (on other articles) and marking them as vandalism. Having said that, it is true that the Whoniverse article is largely synthesis and not much good in my opinion too.  I am just worried about what they intend to replace everything they are deleting with if it is anything like their bizarre ramblings on talk pages.  Perhaps the article should be merged with the Doctor Who article? Mezigue (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The term does have notability, just like Buffyverse. If 41..212 is truly disruptive, ask for protection. And ask him to keep his comment concise. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Editnotice formatting
Hi Edokter,

Editnotice looks ridiculous on ridiculously narrow screens and/or with unusually large font sizes. Do you think that it would be possible (and, I hope, not very difficult) to make it format a little more sensibly, so that the left-hand image doesn't always take up an entire column? It's definitely beyond me even to suggest something that might work, but you will be able to see the issue by editing any WP:TFA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TFA doesn't have editnotices as far as I can see. Oh right, Template:TFA-editnotice. The editnotice template is just a wrapper; it's the message (and parameters) passed to them that decide how it is shown. Do you have examples? — Edokter  ( talk ) — 23:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at what TFA-editnotice does if you make your browser window narrow (e.g., as narrow as a smartphone screen). Or Template:Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement.  I think it would make more sense for the text wrap to around the icon, like we do with most uw-type talk page messages.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoniverse (2)
41.132.49.185 has now gone against consensus and removed a large amount of sourced material, as well as making a large amount of the article appear in italics. The article is now very WP:POV. They have also engaged in other disruptive behaviors, despite your warning. Could you do something about this? G S Palmer (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

All mentioned in length on the discussion page, which User:G S Palmer seems to have declined to contribute to constructively. What I have done is remove all the rambling totally unsourced WP:POV and instead put in what the WP:RS actually state. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the italics with parenthesis. My only problem is that the same WP:RS is listed as References numbers 1-4, and I do not know how to make them all show up as the same citation. other than that, the article is a definite improvement over what it was. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? The article is now merely a poorly written outline of your thesis!  Please see WP:NOTOPINION.  This article now has no reference to the current meaning, namely the fictional universe that Doctor Who takes place in.  Also, you are attempting to discredit that view by inserting all the quotes where the author says things like "this is just my opinion."  This article needs to be returned to Edokter's clean slate or merged with Doctor Who.  G S Palmer (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 41.., your version is way too singular and based on a single source. I urge you to revert the mass removal and work from there. As long as information is sourced, you should not remove it. Information from the BBC for instance is reliable. Your interpretation of policy is overly strict. You may also want to read up on Writing about fiction.
 * GS (and ohters), everything you add must be supported by at least one source that confirms the information. No [citation needed] tags; if such info is added, it is subject to removal.
 * If you can't work it out, I will have to force you to Dispute resolution by temporarely locking the article. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The problems here are simple:

1)As at least have a dozen WP:RS show, the Original Usage is the Current Usage.

2)And the reason the article "Whoniverse"(referring to the fictional setting) is based on a single source is because that is the only WP:RS using that definition that anyone has been able to find after many long hours searching.

The "Current usage" section is wrong. The term is most commonly used currently in the exact same sense that the "original usage" section defines. The Loccifier mention is the only RS using G S Palmer's definition, and there are numerous RS(including at least 3 from official BBC websites) using the term in its original meaning. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bug you again, but User:G S Palmer's POV-pushing, OR, and plain disruptive editing has now gotten totally out of hand. He/she persists in adding unsourced, POV material, as well aa adding sections that have nothing to do with the subject of the article. I have tried repeatedly to discuss this on the discussion page, but he/she just blanket-reverts the unsourced OR mess, without trying to engage constructively at all on the discussion page. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Edokter, the version currently protected is the faulty version, despite what this user wants you to believe. This article needs to be changed back to your clean version, because as it is it makes no mention of the fact that the term is currently applied to the fictional universe.  If it fails to mention that aspect, then the article should either be deleted or merged with Doctor Who fandom or Doctor Who  This version is filled with POV, and in addition is poorly written.  Furthermore,the reason no one has found any sources is because we have been too busy trying to contain this user, who has been both reverted and warned by both User:Mezigue and myself, as well as an impartial user who 41.132.49.185 attempted to recruit.  Please consider changing the protected version back to where it was before 41.132.49.185 rewrote it to fit their opinion.  G S Palmer (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, it mentions it in the opening paragraph. And G S Palmer's "clean" version is the unsourced POV one. In any case, Admins can read both versions, and make a reasoned judgement, rather than just blanket-reverting like G S Palmer does.41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Er, no it doesn't. It never once makes mention of the term "fictional universe".  Also, the first sentence is terribly written: "The Whoniverse(a portmanteau of the words "[Doctor] Who" and "universe"), is an idea concerning the BBC television show Doctor Who and its spin-offs published by Jean-Marc Lofficier in his 1992 book The Universal Databank.[1]"'.  What's with the parenthesis around Doctor?  I fail to see what was wrong with the version from before your bold edit: it was well sourced and impartial.  Your change of it shows that you are biased.  G S Palmer (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's entirely because the only RS never once uses that term. I am sorry to say that I re-wrote the opening paragraph to the point that the information was actually Reliably Sourced, and the information in the article could be Verified by the Reliable Source. My main concerns with the prior version were that a)there were no Reliable Sources to back up anything it said and b)it took it for granted that Doctor Who has always been intentionally set in the "fictional universe" called "The Whoniverse". Unfortunately, as stated repeatedly on the discussion page, the earliest recorded usage of the term "Whoniverse" to use the term in this way is from 1992. Nor is it universally accepted today that Doctor Who is set in this "fictional universe". There are certainly no BBC links stating this. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made an attempt to list everything currently wrong with the article here. Also, merely by the grace of being a work of fiction, Doctor Who is set in a fictional universe.  Your assertions otherwise still fail to hold up to scrutiny.  G S Palmer (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have replied there. And I believe the discussion should be kept there, rather than clogging up Edokter's talk page. Also, your "merely by the grace..." comment is the very definition of WP:POV, and can not possibly be taken seriously in terms of writing a Wikipedia article. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Articles using fixed number of columns in reflist
Hi Edokter - could you give an explanation of why the above category has been created and is being tracked? At the moment it seems a little conspicuous for no reason. Thanks! SFB 23:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. See Template talk:Reflist. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 02:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoniverse (Yes, again)
User:G S Palmer has wrongly declared a "consensus" which appears to consist entirely of him/her and User:Mezigue. He/she has taken to adding material that either does not have anything to do with the article, does not mention anything to do with the article, or is totally unsourced. His/her approach is basically to create an opinionated article made almost entirely out of whole cloth. While the discussion about the article's editing is still going on on the discussion page. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask for a third opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 14:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was brought up there already without my knowledge, and the whole thing just fizzled out. I already tried to take it to Edit Disputes, but it was thrown out. Is there somewhere else on Wikipedia that can get this issue resolved? Thank you. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mezigue, GraemeLegget and I have only been attempting to create a well-sourced, relevant article. There was a consensus to do so at Talk:Whoniverse, with even 41 in agreement, and all content that has been added has been sourced. However, this user objects because not all of the sources mention the word "Whoniverse". They claim that this is WP:SYNTHESIS. We have tried to explain that it is not, but they refuse to listen. If they continue to revert to the poorly written version, would you consider semi-protecting the page? Thanks! G S Palmer (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. We agreed about the way the article should be structured. User:G S Palmer then started adding material that was either A)totally unsourced, B)sourced from non-RS fanboy websites or C)material from proper RS that never actually mention anything to do with the subject of the article. It is the last of these three that is clearly SYNTHESIS. I have explained and re-explained more times than I can even begin to remember. User:G S Palmer ignores this, while User:Mezigue has actually said that they don't care what policy is, because he/she and User:G S Palmer want things their way, so that is it. I have had to copy-paste sections of Wikipedia Policy on the Whoniverse discussion page, and yet User:G S Palmer still adds material that is either A)totally unsourced, B)sourced from non-RS fanboy websites or C)material from proper RS that never actually mention anything to do with the subject of the article. I'm not denying that User:G S Palmer created a relevant article. It's just that it was most certainly not "well-sourced". Of the three the most alarming may be hi/her attempts to lift Doctor Who material from pages that pass as RS, but where those pages never mention anything to do with the subject of the article he/she is adding them to. The fact remains that all we have is Lofficier's Foreword(and User:G S Palmer both puts in information that is contrary to what Lofficier himself states, and ignores the parts where Lofficier himself refers to how this is just his take, and that others may come to different conclusions). There is also another article that they claim is a RS, but it's about a Fan festival, and a reference to "the Daleks and the Cybermen being the two biggest baddies in the Whoniverse" is the only thing of any relevance. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "while User:Mezigue has actually said that they don't care what policy is, because he/she and User:G S Palmer want things their way, so that is it. " You know, it is not a good idea to affabulate on a web site where everything is on the record.  I said no such thing of course, I said you don't understand those rules (and make some up). As an aside, I am not sure why this conversation always restarts on poor Edokter's talk page when he is not involved. Mezigue (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

,, , , , ,. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Edokter, I just wanted to let you know that I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for reverting 4 times within 24 hours and have warned the other editor (who is at 3 reverts) that he will almost certainly be blocked if he reverts again. I'm glad the IP has reached out to WP:NORN, but that doesn't make it okay to cross WP:3RR and it's only 10 days ago (as you know) that he was at the EWN. :/ I don't have any objection to an early unblock if you deem it appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And now they're both blocked. (What's that forehead slap icon? :P) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be facepalm. I was wondering what to do myself, being mildly involved. Glad you stepped up. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The sad thing is that I actually was glancing at WP:NPOVN to see if there was anything I could help out with - I had no expectations to be using admin tools. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts
You put up with it longer than I did. But I am old and long ago learned not to wrestle with greased pigs. He will probably keep adding comments, but I have no intention of further interaction. --  Gadget850talk 12:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have ignored him from the beginning; that was my biggest mistake. Don't worry though, when I intend to ignore someone, I don't even read their comments anymore. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Main page proposal
I think it's time to put your new framework to the test. Would you like to do the honours and put up the proposal on the Main Page, as well as advertise it on WP:CENT and any other usual venues? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 21:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not very good at drafting proposals, but I'll do my best. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You could type up a draft here, and we could work on it together. If you'd like. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's get through this day first, otherwise I am tempted to propose a pink page with ponies. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 23:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reuse of Tech News in the Signpost's Technology report
Greetings from another Whovian, and thank you for all your work on the Signpost. I'm happy to see that Tech News is useful to you, as editor of the Technology report. I was wondering if we could find a consistent way of including content from Tech News: sometimes items are cherry-picked from the newsletter, sometimes the whole content is copied verbatim, and sometimes content is copied without as little as a link to attribute its provenance.

I think it's perfectly fine to cherry-pick content, since not all items apply to the English Wikipedia. Copy/pasting content verbatim is also perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, since Tech News was started as a way to consolidate monitoring efforts on technical topics across community publications such as the Signpost. However, I think it would be useful to define how to properly attribute that content, not just to give authors of Tech News the proper credit they deserve, but also to give Signpost subscribers a clearer idea of the provenance of the content they're reading. To some extent, this also applies to the content copied from the monthly Wikimedia engineering report, although it matters less because I'm its author and I care more about properly crediting the volunteers who write Tech News :)

Historically, the Signpost has used templates such as WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Rquote to cite content from the engineering report, or cquote for longer cited content. I think the latter would work well for content republished from Tech News, along with a source line linking back to the original Tech News issue. Do you think that would work?

Thank you for your time :) guillom 13:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notes. I will certainly take care of the attribution in the future, and retian the footer. I don't think the quote templates are specifically usefull in this context though. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it :) guillom 12:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well played. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fooled ya... — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 41.132.48.255
As part of the continued debate at Whoniverse, this IP has now resorted to accusing User:Mezigue and me of WP:MEAT. Do you think you could do something about this? G S Palmer (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position.[14] Such a recruited member is considered analogous to a sockpuppet even though he is actually a separate individual (i.e. "meat") rather than a fictitious creation." . Maybe "meat puppet" was a bit strong.41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A bit strong? Mezigue has been a near constant contributor to the discussion on the talk page.  In fact, he was their before I was!  This is not even vaguely like meat puppetry!  G S Palmer (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Jesmion
Hi, it's a pleasure getting intouch with you, i thrill the first time i got you shew concern about me,  frankly i was thrill am of preferable change from years of suspension, Thanks,  41.220.68.12 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Jesmion
Hi, it's a pleasure getting intouch with you, i thrill the first time i got you shew concern about me,  frankly i was thrill am of preferable change from years of suspension, Thanks,  41.220.68.12 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

High praise
I can't express with a Barnstar how much appreciation I have for your work on redesigning the Main Page. I've attempted to do exponentially smaller projects (redesigning a WikiProject logo, for example) and was barely able to handle the dejection and apathy I was confronted with. Unfortunately, most people simply don't care about the minute details that go into design. It would undoubtedly kill me to take up a project as large as yours, and I wanted to personally thank you for giving a shit about Wikipedia's design, rather than simply giving way to those wishing to remain stagnant.

Your work can and will lead millions of people to learn from and contribute to Wikipedia. The time and thought you've committed are vastly apparent, and again I have to state my appreciation of that. Truly, thank you. --Nicereddy (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Typography opt-out
Hi Edokter. I use the "Vector classic typography" opt-out in my Gadgets, which I believe you created (and thank you so much for that!). However, it appears to have stopped working in the last few minutes. Do you know of any recent technical changes which might have caused this, and (more to the point) how to fix it? I've tried the usual refresh cache/try different browser approach, but to no avail. Cheers, Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting; Twinkle's gone as well - probably related... Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, there's a thread developing at WP:VPT - sorry to bother you. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

fact, not speculation
My recent addition to the Doctor Who article was a needed piece of missing information. It is fact, not speculation. Anyone who's watched the series from the beginning has seen this. It can be confirmed simply by watching the first episode. I will put it back tomorrow. If you remove it again, I will request that you be removed from your position. Your behavior is inexcusable. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a fact. It is WP:SPECULATION on your part about what those lines of dialogue signify. It is also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as to any possible reference to them years later. Edokter's removal was quite proper and I fully support that action. MarnetteD | Talk 19:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What MarnetteD said. All content must be verifiable by reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a medium to engage in deductive reasoning. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the removal as well, but I already told you that, didn't I? It's never a good idea to run around to get yours at all cost. Not only does it look bad on your record, it's a waste of everybody's time. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Template:Rellink/doc
I just had a bit of an epiphany a moment ago, so here's my question: Was there any information that was on Template:Rellink/doc regarding the "extraclasses" parameter that was merged that should be added into Template:Hatnote/doc? I was looking at the latter a moment ago, and realized that the doc file does not go into any detail regarding the "extraclasses" parameter. Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the documentation of Rellink was:

{{divbox|green|3= This meta-template is used to style section hatnotes that direct users to related articles.

Usage
produces

Adding an  parameter allows extra CSS classes to be specified. }}
 * — Edokter  ( talk ) — 14:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I was able to make a minor update to Template:Hatnote/doc accordingly. Steel1943  (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Massive content removal from Template:Key press/doc
Hi, Edokter

I noticed you removal a lot of contents from Template:Key press/doc, especially a portion that was valid and I used in Windows 7 article yesterday. Your edit summary suggests that it was a mistake but in case it isn't, would you care to tell me what's the secret of this "reset"?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Over half of the symbols added to the template do not display on every system, so I removed the from Key press/core. Since they are no longer present, their counterparts on the /doc page are no longer relevant. You will see that half the page is now without meaning. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really. But I'll bypass my browser's cache and get back to you. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I inspected actual renders of both edits, page by page, and I think I got them all. Sorry for the inconvenience that I caused; I am afraid from where I am standing, your edit really, really, really, needs a descriptive summary. There is too much ambient noise in it that prevents the reviewer from seeing what you actually did.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am alraady sifting through to doc page to remove every non-relevant bits by hand.


 * Oh, yeah. I see. You've so far restored some of my deletion that were originally your deletions. I'm just saying... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)