User talk:TheDoctorWho/archive1

Proposed deletion of Riley B. Smith
Hello, TheDoctorWho. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Riley B. Smith, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Maxim was buzzed on AGT
His wife was buzzed. Pappione (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Maxim was not buzzed. Pappione (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * correction*
 * Pappione Thank you for pointing out my mistake I didn't notice. Next time may I suggest leaving a notice on the articles talk page so that its more likey to get noticed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) into List of Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) characters. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Editing
Hello there, just a heads up, reverting edits from more experienced editors can be viewed in a disheartening way to some editors. Judging by your previous edits, I am merely giving you some advice: step lightly around others, make good edits, but avoid reverting from more experienced editors until you have proven yourself. That note had nothing to do with the table, and it was to keep consistency with other edits. Hawkeye75  (talk)  08:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious Hawkeye75 this edit was made on America's Got Talent (season 12) and there was a note in the same table about light balance having a technical issue. How is that any different from the note I had? TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's under the column "act", so people could interpret the performance to be normal, but it wasn't a live performance, so it was a different act. Also, for your note, there was another act named "Kinetic King" in season 6 and his act had a big mistake in it and there is no note, so it's to keep consistency as well. Hawkeye75   (talk)  01:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright Hawkeye75 I won't add this one back. But judging by your previous edits/history, my advice to you: is to explain or explain in more detail (for the ones you did explain) before reverting someones edits 3 times. You may have been on here longer than I have but judging by your talk page that doesn't make you more experienced (and no I'm not saying I'm more experienced than you). TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

CBBUK
Which part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Celebrity_Big_Brother_(UK)#Requested_moves don't you understand?, Next time you wanna move a page go to WP:RM. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I did. TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies the note above was unnecessarily harsh, I assumed you knew the prev RM before moving but not everyone checks the talkpage first but regardless my apologies for the above message, Thank you for starting an RM :), Happy editing, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry too my response was a little rude. Thank you for voicing your opinion in the move request. I think we're both here to make Wikipedia a better place and idk about you but I know sometimes I act first and think later. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Same here I always act first and think later, Exactly that's what we all want - To try and make this a better place and to help all our readers, No worries and thank you for starting an RM :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

RM
Hi, Please don't do this again - We go by arguements presented, not by the number of !votes, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry my mistake. On the majority of move requests I see people do that and up to this point I hadn't seen anything that said otherwise.TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Spot the Dog
I find the closing of the RM at Talk:Spot the Dog rather odd, since there was only one objection to the proposal to move the article (and three other people clearly in favour of moving the article), and that person did not respond when two other people commented that there was no evidence to support that person's opinion. The responses to the last two relistings all supported moving the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The first point I want to make is that we use consensus and the arguments made, not voting. Secondly the person who did oppose made the point that the scope of this article is about the book not the pup. For example it wouldn't make sense to name an article about a TV show after a character. Also even though they didn't make their decision clear the comment two above that makes the argument that it could get confused for a real life animal. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no evidence that the scope of the article affects the decision about whether its current title is appropriate. The scope of the article is also debatable, as the article includes a substantial amount of discussion of topics that are outside of that editor's scope suggestion. When those two issues were pointed out, the person who expressed opposition did not respond.  SMcCandlish and In ictu oculi even provided candidate titles that would be aligned with that editor's scope suggestion. I'll grant that the discussion may not have converged on the selection of a specific alternative title, but I believe we had reached an agreement that the current title was not appropriate. A full month had gone by since anyone had suggested otherwise. I believe we would have converged on a specific alternative if the discussion had not been closed. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also the request had been relisted three times. Requests get relisted when there are not enough comments to determine consensus. No other comments on the matter had been added since the last time it had been relisted. And the scope of the article is not debatable, it lists: The books, the characters in the books, television after the books, has a picture of the book cover, and the LEAD paragraph starts with "The Spot books".
 * Actually, I believe the comments from In ictu oculi were added since the last time it had been relisted. Thank you for your views on the scope of the article, although I think that even if we consider the scope to be the books, there is no evidence that the current article title is appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do agree that maybe something similar to what ictu oculi suggested. However as no one else commented on their suggestion I barely considered that as a proper title. Maybe a new move request with something like that? I would support that move.
 * Thank you for the further response. I will probably submit a new request like that. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright drop me a message here if you do and I'll leave a comment.

Big Brother page/Sep 2017
Hi, you recently reverted one of edits made to the Big Brother (U.S. TV series) page because it wasn't "constructive". I just wanted to question this revert because I was simply changing the date of the premiere. It was originally put as Winter 2018, when it is premiering in Winter of 2017. I don't understand how this is npt constructive and hopefully this is just a misunderstanding. Bbfan23 (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All sources consistently state that it premieres in Winter 2018. There should be a source on Big Brother (U.S. TV series) I'm pretty sure I put one in. If there's not a source I apologize. If you would like to see more information there should be many sources at Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series).

Replaceable fair use File:Francis Tuttle OKC Rockwell Campus.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Francis Tuttle OKC Rockwell Campus.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hidden note at Tracy Spiridakos
That's not how that works – you revert to the version before there was a change while discussion is going on, not your preferred version. And what discussion?... Also, you may want to take a look at this discussion when MOS:TVCAST was recently updated – there was significant support for defining "recurring" as a minimum of 5 or 6 episodes, and almost no support for counting 3 back-to-back appearances as "recurring". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed the part about keeping consistency between that page, Chicago P.D. (TV series), and List of Chicago P.D. characters. Also I'm talking about this Talk:Chicago_P.D._(TV_series) discussion. And as to your discussion did you expect me to go through every discussion there? I based my opinion off the main WP:TVCAST which clearly hasn't been updated to include that discussion.TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I pointed you directly to the relevant discussion (though there may have been discussions about "recurring" elsewhere on that page...). And, yes – the current wording of TVCAST does reflect that discussion: that's why it's very clear that two episodes or even more may not in fact be a "recurring" role. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright well I am truly sorry I missed that you pointed me to that discussion. Yes it does say that two or three episodes may not be a recurring role, however it turns right around in that same paragraph and states: "If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status.". Which is exactly what is happening because some sources call her recurring, some call her guest, and some do not specify at all.

September 2017
Your recent editing history at Tracy Spiridakos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Spot the Dog
Please self-revert your WP:NAC of that RM discussion. It's a faulty closure, ignoring a 2:1 result with real rationales to side with a lone opponent who did not provide a valid one. Any RM admin would have closed this in favor of moving. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I'm just going to list this at WP:MR, since I see above that others have objected to the close and you did not revert it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Me and the other editor came to an agreement; also please note that 2:1 means nothing because we use consensus not voting.
 * Your understanding of how RM operates is faulty. So is your nature of what consensus is; you and one other person coming to an agreement is what is meaningless here. Move review/Log/2017 October.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't just another editor it was the nominator themselves. Read that discussion and maybe open a new move request based off of our discussion??? TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:OWN and WP:VESTED; the nom has no more say in this than any other editor. You clearly do not understand how this stuff works yet, and need to stop doing NACs until you do. I see above that  before you did that NAC, you were chastised by an RM admin for leaving a bare "per nom" !vote, and misunderstood his admonition that RM closers do not just count votes to mean that relative support levels don't mean anything at all. That's an incorrect assessment.  And yes, we do assess the arguments and consensus for them when closing, which is precisely what you did not do. I'm not going to argue with you about this further; the MR is open, and you are clearly not yet competent to do closures. Assessing consensus is difficult, and requires a lot of WP community experience.  As WP:NAC indicates, non-admins should not do closes except when the result is obvious and uncontroversial (what we call a WP:SNOWBALL); nuanced consensus assessment is what we have admins for. Hope this helps.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record I know that RM closers do not count votes. Also I did asses arguments and consensus and found better to close the way I did. (Also I didn't realize a book about a dog would be so controversial) I stand by my decision today and would not change it if I had the opportunity. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're just digging your hole deeper. I hope you realize that by taking this defiant and prideful stance you're pre-torpedoing any chance of you might have someday have had for WP:RFA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotta check myself on that one: that's a hyperbolic mis-statement on my part. It probably wouldn't have any effect on an RfA a year or so out, if it was just a blip and not a pattern.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Side matter
At User talk:CambridgeBayWeather, you asked:


 * If you'd prefer I take the matter to WP:ANI, I can certainly do so. However, the point of the evidentiary post at MR is specifically about your admin-like (including NAC) judgement, and the evidence is in furtherance of one thing only: having the bad close reversed. The point is not to have you admonished or restricted.  If I'd taken this to ANI, the usual venue for concerns about a pattern of unconstructive edits or behavior, the focus would have been on admonishment/restriction, since that's what ANI does.  So, you're kind of complaining that I made an informal objection that won't have any consequences for you rather than having pursued one that likely would have. It's like "How dare you try try to negotiate an out-of-court settlement on a minor matter instead of filing a massive lawsuit about it". :-)  PS: I also later added a note that you're a productive editor generally; it's just that your admin-like actions have not been, due simply to lack of sufficient experience.  That's hardly a condemnation, just an indication to get more experience before trying to do such things. Air force pilots-in-training who are still in boot camp don't fly fighter jets yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  20:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not prefer you'd take the matter to ANI. It was simply a question that's all I wanted to know. Also thank you for your views on my editing. I would very much like to continue being a productive editor that is what I am here for. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right oh. (And I was being a bit facetious about ANI; no one would want the drama. LOL.) PS: If it makes you feel any better, back around March I got involved in another wiki and allowed myself to assume it operated pretty much just like WP does, and the same thing happened; I started getting involved in policy, "enforcement", maintenance, etc., without fully understanding the "culture" an the finer points of process, procedure, and rule interpretation/applicability at that site, and got a lot of heat for it.  Six months later it passed, and I'm one of the most active editors on the site and haven't been reverted on anything in 2+ months.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no! That's not good! It's good that you're a more involved editor and that you haven't had any reverts in a bit!!! Even though we haven't came into contact with each other before this hopefully we can continue to work together peacefully in the future without anything like this! :). TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeedy!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  20:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hawaii Five-0 Cast.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hawaii Five-0 Cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Series 11
Hi! I was going to revert your edits to the articles for the actors of the new companions of Series 11, but I decided to ask you first - do you have a source that Series 11 is now filming? Just that the only thing I've found is that it's in pre-production. --  Alex TW 02:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're right that was my mistake (I think I confused pre-production for filming). I'll revert that now. Thank you for pointing that out. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems, just wanted to make sure, in case I'd missed an announcement. --  Alex TW 03:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Finale Chart
Thank you so much for fixing the chart, Ssilvers and I worked so hard on it. Whoever removed it had no edit summary at all, so I didn’t know why they wanted to remove it. :-D Thissecretperson (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem! When making big changes like that its good to get consensus or something like that. The least they could do was leave an edit summary explaining why. Hopefully they don't remove it again and I've had that place on my watchlost for a while and will continue to keep it there so if they remove it again I'll put it back. TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Great Fight Television Logos.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Great Fight Television Logos.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hawaii Five-0 Season 8 cast.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hawaii Five-0 Season 8 cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AmericanAir88 -- AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Joe Roe
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg JzG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news
 * Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
 * A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous
 * Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series)
The article Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AmericanAir88 -- AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi TheDoctorWho. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ATheDoctorWho enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  Malinaccier ( talk ) 18:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Widr (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.