Talk:Doctor Who Restoration Team

message: somebody keeps deleting names of valid members...
:Because they aren't valid members - as well you know. Marwood 10:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing, they haven't. Secondly, even if they have - that doesn't make them members of the team. Marwood 13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No worries, mate.  I've also learnt the intricacies of Wikipedia and its style through others' correcting of my writing, and I never meant it in a negative way!  Edit on!  Dewet 17:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Right, this could go back and forth ad nauseam.  Should we go to Wikipedia:Third opinion on this? The Parting Glass (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion? 

message: That would be acceptable to me certainly. I don't represent any other editors anonymous or otherwise. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed it.  If there's anything you think ought to be added, feel free to expand the entry (although actual discussion of pros and cons should remain here). The Parting Glass (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: There seem to be two aspects to this, firstly the link to the "List of changes and modifications made to Doctor Who serials on DVD," and secondly the supposed "controversy" relating to Peter Finklestone. The latter I removed myself in November last year because - as stated - it doesn't actually have anything to do with the work of the RT. The list, on the other hand, does have a degree of merit in and of itself, but it is linked with a forum that is very critical of the RT, which questions the motivation behind it (the list). It seems that both matters are being used collectively as sticks to beat the RT with. The issue of changes made by the RT to certain DVD releases is certainly an important one, but I think we should find a more neutral source to cite.
As to declaring interests, I "vaguely know" two members of the RT (neither of whom are Finklestone), although I haven't seen them "in real life" for around ten years, and have only very sporadic online contact with either. I could probably walk past them in the street without recognising them. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What would your opinion be if the exact same list of edits and comments was sited somewhere else? I don't see how it can be regarded as biased in itself (and I was not a contributor). Indeed the numerous references in it to 'cleanup' and 'restoration' could be regarded as pro-RT. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would turn that around with a more extreme but similar scenario: would we link to a list of statistics of deaths at Nazi concentration camps on a neo-Nazi website, even if it was factually correct? Context is everything. If the same information exists on a more neutral site, we can link to that, but as Marwood notes above, if the information doesn't exist anywhere else, we can't verify it and so can't include it. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two penny'th... 

message: The link in question is .
The wiki has 222 total users, the page has 4 unique contributors. This would probably fail to meet the criteria at WP:EL. However I think the material is relevant and useful, and probably verifiable given VHS/DVD inspection and whatever the source for "Restoration Notes" is. Perhaps move the material to Wikipedia, where it can be judged on it's own worth rather than by its location? I direct import would likely be deleted, work should be put in to identify the sources and properly cite the material. –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to wiki 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the article summary a word for word copyvio from the RT website? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Why are both Finklestone and Crocker listed as names? Surely it should be one or the other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.105.185 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since lots of people with widely different last names have the first name Peter it is hard to decipher what you are asking about. MarnetteD | Talk 00:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Can you provide a reliable source for that? DonQuixote (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Unless you can prove otherwise by, amongst other things, citing a reliable source, you're wrong on all accounts. DonQuixote (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who Restoration Team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205003750/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/KeyToTime.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/KeyToTime.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified