User talk:TedEdwards/Archive 2

Home

Talk

Sandboxes

Userboxes

Tabs

Twinkle

Edits

It is approximately 7:27 PM where this user lives (UK). []

Correct time

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

December 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I presume you are refering to my edits circling The Five Doctors. The reason why I am doing this is because the Five Doctors is a single episode, and all other single episodes are in title marks and not in italics, and serials are in italics.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 23:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to The Five Doctors; but I'm also referring to Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode and to several other pages that you have edited recently. After you have been reverted once, you should discuss your proposal, don't keep making your changes when others, such as AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs), DonQuixote (talk · contribs), Edokter (talk · contribs), MarnetteD (talk · contribs), (and myself) have reverted you. This is called WP:BRD. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, keep your hair on.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 00:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please do not make edits like this. The links to the redirect Jenna-Louise Coleman are WP:NOTBROKEN, therefore should have been left alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Two things. 1)My editing did not cause any problems, so it was not "disruptive editing" 2) YOU ARE STILL PATROLLING ME LIKE A HAWK.Theoosmond (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Polite request: Could you please stop looking over me like a hawk. It is incredibly annoying to know all your contributions are being registered, and if you notice me going against a policy, could you not send me disruptive editing notices and simply send me a link to the policy in question, please. I only go against policies I don't know about. Cheers!Theoosmond (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If you edit disruptively and persistently, you will attract attention. Also, I did give you a link: it is WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64:I know you gave me a link, my point was I don't need these disruptive editing notices. I don't break policies I know about, I only break policies I don't know about. What would be helpful is if you notice me breaking a policy, simply send me a link and revert the edit, I can recognise my mistake from there. I don't need the disruptive editing notices you have sent me twice (in fairness one called for due to WP:REDLINK was nessary due to me being a little bit stupid). The one you made yesterday was unnessary, since I did not know I was being disruptive, so just sending a link to my talk page is satifactory. I don't want to have my talk page cluttered up with notices/warnings, unless it is absolutely nessary. To reiterate, don't send me pointless notices.Theoosmond (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Could I just check, do you understand what I meant in my previous talk?Theoosmond (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history 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 article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Doctor Who (series 7). Thank you. --Drmargi (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Doctor Who (series 7)

Hello Theoosmond. There is a somewhat confusing report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Theoosmond reported by User:Drmargi (Result: No action). The initial impression might be that you are the one edit warring. If you leave the extra headings in place (at least, until a clear consensus is found on the talk page) there will be no further action. If you can't persuade the others on whether the extra headings are needed, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Talk:Doctor Who (series 7). If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Your comment of "And don't archive the dicussion or call consensus without my approval" falls under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, and will not be tolerated. If you have a question about the closed discussion, post on my talk page. Do not revert the closing of a discussion that has been done so by a neutral admin. You will be reported. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 (again!)

Your recent editing history at Talk:Doctor Who (series 7) 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 article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin closure and consensus

I'm glad to see you've moved on and made peace with Alex the Whovian, but please recognize that when an administrator closes a discussion, it's over. You don't edit war it back open, and you don't declare "NO CONSENSUS" when a neutral administrator has said there is consensus. Asking an admin to close a discussion that is going in circles, as the one involving the headings was, is standard procedure. Rather than post at the administrator's noticeboard, which I could have done, I asked Cyphoidbomb to take a look at the discussion and see if it could be closed because he has extensive experience editing television articles, and thereby a better frame of reference for evaluating whether there was consensus.

You really should take the time to read WP:CONSENSUS carefully. The opening paragraph includes the statement that consensus is not unanimity. Consensus is a majority view, and aside from you, the editors contributing to the discussion agreed that the headings were helpful, appropriate and encyclopedic. Cyphoidbomb saw that readily, thus the close and his comments. Try not to lose sight of the fact that we're here to write an encyclopedia, and that means we organize content in such a way that it eases use by readers. Headings are a very basic, well established way to do so, and we use them based on the needs of individual articles. --Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmargi OK, recieved and understood. And anyway, after much thought, the headings are a good idea. The reason I didn't approve of them was because I felt there were too few episodes in each part, but now I think there's an OK number in each part, if that makes any sense. I will look at the link you gave me carefully, of course, at my next sensible opportunity. Thanks for the link.Theoosmond (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I am sorry about being so annoying and disruptive.Theoosmond (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Although I now approve of the heading, I can't say they are standard policy, however. It's, as I've said before, a some do, some don't. I just thought I'd point that out to you.Theoosmond (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help...

But don't get caught up in an edit war. Let's let AN3 do its job. --Drmargi (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And it worked! Whew! --Drmargi (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Errors

When you see edits that have accidentally caused an error in an article, instead of insta-reverting ([1][2]), might I suggest either asking the editor in question what the intended edit was, or fixing it yourself in the same manner that was done by the two editors who fixed your reverts ([3][4])? Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason I reverted is because, while I could see what the changes would look like if done correctly, I couldn't see what the problem was (I'm not very good at templates) and I couldn't just leave them broken like that. Theoosmond (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who

I wanted to say thank you for all you did on resolving our difference of opinions - and also the effort you put in to getting different examples available for people to review. The final edit seems to have held up and looks great. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5