User talk:TedEdwards/Archive 3

TedEdwards is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia at some point hopefully (but not for a long while)

It is approximately 7:57 AM where this user lives (UK). [refresh]

Correct time

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TedEdwards. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Thanks

Thank you for your gallant defense, buddy. He's been banned from my talk for over a year, but it does no good. Unfortunately, harassment of female editors is not taken seriously here all too often, at least in a timely manner. He will continue until an admin pays attention and acts on it. --Drmargi (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi:How come harassment against female editors isn't taken seriously? It's as if editors are living in the dark ages. TedEdwards (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Because fewer than 5% of admins and 20% of editors are women, and the boys club tolerates the harassment. In some cases, they've found ways to ban the women who fight back. It's been written about in the media, but nothing happens. Which isn't to say they all tolerate it; that's far from true. But too few editors give a damn. So he can say anything he wants with impunity, and nothing happens. --Drmargi (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Hi. Could you tell me what problem my edit is causing? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The results for the primary in Maine (the numbers) vanished. If you can fix that issue, I won't stop you. But from the differences between edits, I couldn't see how the edit worked, so I couldn't fix it except by reverting. TedEdwards (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: I've just worked out how your edit worked, and fixed it. Sorry about being too hasty. TedEdwards (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries ;) ~~I've added the Maine results to the table.~~ (Beat me to it). There's also an edit link at the bottom of the table. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ellaria Sand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Two Swords. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ellaria Sand for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ellaria Sand 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellaria Sand 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 notice from the top of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't intend to denigrate your work. Thanks for the improvements. You're quite correct that more time might have been offered to improve and source the page prior to nomination. I can't claim I haven't nommed prematurely myself. Please consider taking the sources Jclemens and I have identified and use them to develop a "reception" section anchored by these strong and diverse sources. This work may prevent others from doubting the character's notability. BusterD (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@BusterD:Alright, but it may take me about a week to create a reception section. Thank you anyway. TedEdwards (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, do you know of any editors who may be able to add a photo to the article? TedEdwards (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TedEdwards. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Time

Your time is wrong by 1 minute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.85.69 (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@109.155.85.69: Why are so interested about the clock on this page? TedEdwards (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Jon Snow

Hi. I reverted your edits on Family trees of Houses Stark and Targaryen because you had removed a character's name that was already confirmed to be a member of these fictional houses. Plus, it's highly unlikely that his parents turn out to be two other individuals in the books rather than Rhaegar and Lyanna. You should have discussed it first. Instead of reverting my edits and starting an edit war please leave a message on Talk:Jon Snow so the other users can participate, and based on everyone's opinion we'll make the final decision together. Keivan.f^Talk 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Keivan.f The family trees should represent the family trees as shown in the books, not the TV series, hence on the Stark Family Tree, Jeyne Westerling is mentioned, not Talisa Maegyr, and since it states that Jon Snow is Eddard's bastard in the books' appendices, that's what it should say on the family tree. Stating that R+L=J is probably true for the books is original research. However, if you wanted to, you could create a separate family tree for the TV series. TedEdwards (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. I don't want to engage in an edit war so I answer you here. Your statement could be true if it wasn't already confirmed by the book writer that the character is actually the son of R & L. Many news websites have already mentioned one of Martin's conditions in order to give permission to the show runners to develop the TV series was that they had to be aware of this character's parentage. Martin is obviously involved in the show and Jon's case isn't even comparable to other characters like Jeyne who's not even a prominent character in the books and her parentage doesn't affect the storyline in any way. And just in case you didn't know, I wasn't the person who added Jon's name to the family tree. As long as I remember User:TAnthony (or probably someone else) did it so it may be much better if you ask for their opinions as well to avoid further edit wars, etc. Keivan.f^Talk 12:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

GRRM has never confirmed R+L=J, and there was no condition that Benioff and Weiss had to be aware of Jon Snow's parentage. What your thinking off is that, apparently, GRRM let Benioff and Weiss write the show after GRRM was satisfied with B and W's answer when he asked them who Jon Snow's mother was. It was never confirmed if B and W's answer was who GRRM thought the mother should be. And haven't you noticed that the plot of GoT has diverged from that of ASoIaF? TedEdwards (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course I have noticed that. Everyone on the Earth knows it. I'm a book reader and a show watcher but that doesn't mean that I should deny obvious things. What I just said above is what the sources say or at least guess and if that's not enough for you, you should probably interview Martin himself. Actually another aspect of what you just stated above could be that Martin became satisfied with their answer so he changed the book's storyline! I guess the only way to reveal the truth is to ask GRRM on his website to solve this issue. Keivan.f^Talk 12:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: What you're not getting is that there has been NO confirmation whatsoever that R+L=J is true in regards to the books. You have no idea who GRRM is going to reveal as Jon Snow's mother in the books. So stop trying to guess, and accept that at the moment, all the sources (not speculation) regarding the books state that Jon is Ned's bastard. TedEdwards (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The Pilot - Doctor Who (continuity)

The addition that I made regarding the 'Out of Order' sign is backed by a reliable source. Look at the page linked to and you'll see visual confirmation. Thanks. Cybersub (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cybersub:doctorwhomindrobber.com is not a reliable source, and in any case it doesn't even mention "The Pilot" at all; all sources in the continuity section must make links between "The Pilot" and the episode referenced in "The Pilot", your "source" only mentions The War Machines. Ted Edwards 14:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: I fail to understand why it isn't a reliable source. It both mentions and shows the 'Out of Order' sign hanging on the TARDIS door, which is the point of continuity referred to. Just because other sources have failed to spot this continuity link doesn't invalidate its legitimacy. Cybersub (talk)

@TedEdwards: I've just noticed that it is, in fact, mentioned in a source used elsewhere in the section, so I'll use that as the reference. Cybersub (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cybersub: Well, the new source is acceptable as a) it is a reliable source and b) it links the "Out of Order" both with "The Pilot" and The War Machines; it must link the two episodes together so the easter egg is properly sourced, unlike what you did with the first "source", where it only mentioned an "Out of Order" sign in The War Machines, the actual easter egg that linked it with "The Pilot" was un"sourced". If you need any help deciding what is a reliable source and what's not, just ask me or any other editor. Ted Edwards 09:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: OK, thanks. Cybersub (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Bill Potts (musician)

In regards to your most recent contribution to the Requested Move here... rather than the musician, who didn't have a single pageview for over 18 months - that's because Bill Potts (musician) didn't exist until a few days ago, when I moved it; it originally resided at Bill Potts. Look at these pageviews, and you'll see the difference between when the musician was at that article, to when DW's Potts is/was. -- Alex^TW 11:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian Whoops! Ted Edwards 11:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know, in case you wanted to amend it.

Hopefully we can get enough support to move it back to the primary topic. -- Alex^TW 11:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just done that. Ted Edwards 11:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)