User talk:Epsilon/Archive 3

	Archives:

The Doctor (The Five O'Clock Shadow)

Ah, no — he used to have a page, actually, but he doesn't anymore. The thing here is that we only award pages to unspecified Doctor if it's clear that they're intended to be new, unnumbered Doctors — but if we don't have any physical description or other reason to think they're not an existing Doctor, then they just go in The Doctor#Undated events. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thinly-veiled characters

Thanks again for all your help in growing this list, I really appreciate it! – n8 (☎) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A Tingle of Happiness

Hi Epsilon,

I noticed that you added that the a demon from Magrs' Nest Cottage Chronicles appeared in A Tingle of Happiness. Where was it confirmed that these Demons were the same? RadMatter ☎ 15:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Appearances list suggestion

I saw your addition on Najawin's sandbox, and just wanted to let you know there was an ongoing discussion about this exact thing and many other aspects of appearances/appearance lists before the forums disappeared. In fact, now that I think about it, if we ever get that thread back it might be the right place for your proposal in general. I don't know if this link will work again, but for reference it was Thread:141930 (called something like "What is an appearance?"). Chubby Potato ☎ 23:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Vitas Varnas in Omega

Hey, just wondering if you had a citation for the matter of the character explicitly both being the same individual in terms of intent. That's the current issue that is being had by me with that page. The existing citation to the story itself doesn't cover that because the story doesn't make the connection itself... hence my addition of a fact tag.

I have heard a few fans say that the two are meant to be the same, but there seems to be no source they can give me.

Until we have a cited statement from Cutaway Comics on the page that works to cover that point, I feel it's worth having that tag there to acknowledge that the connection of both instances is a matter that will cited from elsewhere rather than the story itself. Otherwise, in my opinion, we're making a bit of a presumptive comment regarding two identically faced characters that we cannot make without cited authorial intent - particularly given precedent in the Whoniverse for identically faced characters that aren't connected. JDPManjoume ☎ 10:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that talk page to my attention. I think the concern for me is that the page still reads as though we're saying that the story itself makes that connection... when perhaps it should be a combination of that Kickstarter page for Omega and something relevant to the Lytton appearance that should be leveraged on the weight of the connection.

Bart Simpson makes for an interesting precedent, and somewhat curious one (I am going to have to try and query Mike Collins about both of those), and I would certainly hope to not be splitting the pages either as that would be rather messy - but without a cited source of some kind or a tag denoting that we've yet to put one in place, I can't help but feel that we are making a call that is a bit difficult to make... I will mull on it. JDPManjoume ☎ 17:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Re External communication

What's wrong with my talkpage? RadMatter ☎ 22:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The Magrs Wiki would be great for me Epsilon! RadMatter ☎ 22:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Some issues that need to be covered

Hi I need to address a couple of things with you.

• The forums and policies: please stop complaining about the lack of forums and User:CzechOut's lack of progress in same. There are a lot of issues here: we have no idea what he's doing in real life that might be keeping him from this project; we have no idea what he's working on and don't want to cause technical issues; and we don't allow just anyone to do whatever they want here (yes a lot of you are experienced prolific editors but not everyone who edits here is, and everyone has to be subject to the same rules). To make a long story short, no more comments about CzechOut's lack of progress.
• Personal attacks: I know you know the rules so I'm not going to quote or cite them here. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with another user, and nothing wrong with pointing that out. However, the namecalling violates policy. Right now I am specifically referring to the discussion post where you called the OP "silly" twice. This user in particular has been here only a little over a month. This is obviously not how we want new users to be greeted. Instead of calling names you could have introduced him to the idea of non-TV doctors. This can be hard for some people to do, but try to put yourself into the position of a new user entering a community and being greeted with name calling.

I actually contemplated blocking you, not so much for the complaints against policy, but more for the namecalling on the discussion boards. Given the discussion over at Tardis talk:Temporary forums, and your obvious disagreement with my deletion of the page, I figured it wouldn't look good for me to block you at this time (it might look like I was trying to silence your arguments). Don't mistake that as any kind of approval of your behavior, and another offense will result in a block.

Sorry this is so long and thanks for reading it Shambala108 ☎ 03:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Baker's End

Hi Epsilon,

Would you be able to elaborate on the research that you did regarding Baker's End and why you don't think that an inclusion debate would be clear cut? RadMatter ☎ 15:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please! RadMatter ☎ 15:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Block

Hi please note that you are blocked for a week for ignoring admin instructions. Specifically, I noted at Talk:Ian Chesterton that only admins can end discussions. You ignored that instruction by removing a "rename" tag at Sprout Boy meets a Galaxy of Stars (TV story). Like I mentioned at the Ian Chesterton talk page, if you think there needs to be some movement in a long-abandoned discussion, ask an admin. Shambala108 ☎ 00:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am answering here your post at Community. When I blocked you I left the ability for you to edit this talk page so it's just easier to keep the conversation here.

To address your points in order:

• Your comment about the Ian Chesterton issue that it wasn't a discussion, rather than a suggestion, is just semantics. Talk pages are specifically defined as for discussing the editing of an article. Any issue raised on the talk page is a discussion, and T:BOUND means that any changes must wait for the discussion to be closed. And there is no magic number of users to make something a discussion.
• "There is no policy that states that admins are the only ones with that power" is not true. The policy has been stated over and over on article talk pages, user talk pages, forum discussions, and edit summaries. Not every policy has to be spelled out on a [[Tardis:something]] page.
• Your point that the discussion you closed was beneficial is irrelevant, because of T:BOUND.
• You were blocked for removing a rename template, which initiates a discussion. That's why non-admins aren't permitted to remove them.
• Please refrain from accusing me (or any other admin) of violating FANDOM blocking policy. As stated in the second point above, our policies are not confined to policy pages; the prohibition of a non-admin closing a discussion is, as stated above, in many places on the wiki.
• "I expect you to re-assess...and...remove [the block]". Sorry but that is not the way to approach it. You have assumed you are in the right and I am in the wrong, and as you can see from my comments, I do not agree with that assessment. Maybe a little contrition would have helped. Sometimes it's just better to say, "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" or even "I appreciate that the block was only one week" instead of expecting the block to be removed.
• No one, admin or otherwise, is allowed to tell other users what to edit. I contribute what I can when I can, and since there are few people with admin powers, my focus tends to be on admininstrative items. There is also the issue that whenever possible, a closing admin should not have participated in a discussion. Be assured that the admins do watch the discussions and are aware of what needs to be done.
• Finally, feel free to contact another admin, as is your right. Hopefully you will get a quick response despite the holiday.

Thanks for your attention Shambala108 ☎ 04:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I am copy/pasting the rules from the "How to respond to being blocked" section of Help:I'm blocked. I have bolded the parts that you violated in your posts to me over at Community Central.

Because Fandom Staff probably won't help you, somehow you need to get in touch with local admin. The only way to do this, if they're preventing you from all communication on their wiki, is to go to another Fandom wiki — neutral ground as it were — and leave a message on their wall/talk page there. If they don't respond to you after one (again, one) polite and reasonable attempt at apology, you can make one last attempt.

You can then seek out a different local admin than the one who blocked you and plead your case. (Again, you'll have to contact them on a different wiki, and again you'll need to keep your cool when you do it.) Admit that you were wrong and ask the "neutral" admin to perform an internal review of the case. If you make your case politely and you admit you were wrong, you might get the blocking re-considered. The blocking might not actually get overturned, but at least you'll have gotten some sort of review by the only people who can overturn it.

Having said all this, you need to be very careful about contacting people who have blocked you. Don't carry on a conversation with a person on wiki a about events on wiki b. The admin of wiki b might not like it, especially if the conversation turns ugly. You could easily end up being banned from wiki b too. Make it one note. Make it apologetic. Don't swear. Don't accuse. Just say, "I made a mistake. I apologise profusely. Is there any way you could review the block and lower it?" That's it. And remember: one attempt at communicating with a blocking admin is reasonable. Two or more attempts can be considered harrassment.

Shambala108 ☎ 03:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Corsair

Hey Toby, just thought you might be interested in Talk:Eleven Things You Probably Didn't Know About the Corsair, since it's relevant to your conversation at Talk:The Corsair. – n8 (☎) 15:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

U.N.I.T. (fictional website)

Hi Epsilon the Eternal, well done on all you've done with the pages for the UNIT website.

In case you wish to do any more pages for the fictional websites, here's a list of all the ones I'm aware of from 2005-07:

• GeoComTex launched: c.06-May-05 Wayback link
• Bad Wolf launched: c.05-Jun-05 Wayback link
• Guinevere One launched: c.18-Dec-05 Wayback link
• Leamington Spa Lifeboat Museum launched: c.06-Apr-06 Wayback link
• Millingdale Ice Cream launched: c.08-Apr-06 Wayback link
• Torchwood House launched: c.23-Apr-06 Wayback link
• Deffry Vale High School launched: c.15-May-06 Wayback link
• Cybus Industries launched: c.23-May-06 Wayback link
• Cybus Fitness launched: c.26-May-06 Wayback link
• Torchwood launched: c.15-Jun-06 Wayback link
• Torchwood Institute launched: c.03-Jul-06 Wayback link
• VoteSaxon launched: c.18-Jun-07 Wayback link
• HaroldSaxon launched: c.25-Jun-07 Wayback link

These are some other websites that I'm less clear on:

• http://internationalelectromatics.co.uk
• http://cybusproperty.co.uk
• http://cybusfinance.co.uk
• http://britishrocketgroup.co.uk
• http://ambrosehall.org.uk
• http://drinkvitex.co.uk
• http://powellestate.co.uk
• http://resistthefutility.org.uk

Plus some Torchwood ones:

• http://blakeenquiries.co.uk
• http://centurycardiff.co.uk
• http://conradfischer.co.uk
• http://darktalk.co.uk
• http://newedenbiotech.co.uk
• http://singlessos.co.uk
• http://standardmail.co.uk

I hope you find this information useful. Doc77can ☎ 01:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Me again, I remembered another one.

• Ghostwatch launched: c.28-Jun-06 Wayback link There was a link on the "Army of Ghosts" episode page on the Doctor Who website.

Also the series 1 sites were linked from the Doctor Who website homepage.

• c.Thu 24-Mar-05, whoisdoctorwho.co.uk from a link at the bottom of the "Rose" homepage entitled Lies, this link seems to have been renamed Who is Doctor Who? by the following day.
• c.Wed 20-Apr-05, unit.org.uk from a link at the bottom of the "World War Three" homepage entitled UNIT: Alien Hotline.
• c.Wed 04-May-05, geocomtex.net from a link hidden in the flash version of the "The Long Game" homepage entitled WELCOME TO GEOCOMTEX.
• c.Sat 04-Jun-05, badwolf.org.uk from a link at the bottom of the "Boom Town" homepage entitled Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?, this link seems to have been renamed Bad Wolf by Mon 13-Jun-05.
• c.Sat 17-Dec-05, guinevere.org.uk from a link on the flash version of "The Christmas Invasion" homepage entitled DISCOVER Mars.

Each of the flash versions of the homepages for "Rose"-"World War Three" & "The Long Game" contained a hidden link to whoisdoctorwho.co.uk. If you hovered the cursor over a specific area text would appear, clicking on it linked to the site. The flash version of the "Boom Town" homepage contained a hidden link to badwolf.org.uk as well, if you hovered the cursor over the TARDIS, the Bad Wolf graffiti would appear, clicking on it linked to the site.

BBC Blog about Doctor Who's online stuff

Doc77can ☎ 01:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Just leaving this link here so I don't forget about it, but I found another in-universe website. henriksonline.co.uk

Epsilon📯 📂

11:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Me again, re your Sanbox Nine.

At the end of each of the first six Series 2 browser games, they would redirect to a webpage which would feature a second pop-up video from Mickey.

Game	Webpage link	Text	Pop-up video URL
Security Bot	[1]	connection ended back to Homepage	mickey1b
Satellites	[2]	Satellite Information Sent - Return to homepage	mickey2b
Defeat Deffry	[3] [4]	SESSION TERMINATED. RETURN TO DEFFRY VALE HIGH SCHOOL HOMEPAGE.	mickey3b mickey3c
Clockwork Quest	[5]	Mission accomplished - Return to homepage	mickey4b
Cybus Spy	[6]		ricky5b
Save Paris	[7]	CONNECTION TERMINATED Disclaimer © Cybus Industries	mickey6b

Hi Epsilon, I uploaded images of all the 2005-06 tie-in websites, hope these are of use to you.

Doc77can ☎ 21:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, here are some of the hidden links & images from the tie-in websites.

• Cheapserve hidden link to files
• Cybus - on this page, you click on © Cybus Industries which is a hidden link to files
• Millingdale Ice Cream - on this page, you click on Ghost Glace which is a hidden link to files

Doc77can ☎ 01:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: Edit war

That might be the case, but wouldn't explain why they revert my edits when I remove the spaces, leaving the rest of their edit intact. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 13:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Presenting yourself as an admin

You are not an admin on this site, I do not appreciate you leaving bold text instructions on my talkpage telling me what to do/what not to do. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 13:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Right — I assume you saw the discussion on the other talk pages, but, for the sake of transparency and protocol, I'll record it here explicitly:

While User:DrWHOCorrieFan, not being an admin either, was sort of making the same mistake, and their tone was a bit curt in general, this doesn't change the fact that the spirit of the above post is correct. Especially when dealing with a new user, you should be careful not to claim, or give the impression of claiming, admin authority that you do not have. As User:Shambala108 noted, this isn't the first time we've had cause to give you a warning about this. Please make a real effort to be more careful about this, especially in the more heated sorts of discussions like the present one. An explicit "I'm not an admin, but…" sort of disclaimer costs little and goes a long way. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sergeant vs Sargeant

Hi there. I notice you've been referring to A Frederick as a sargeant rather than by the correct spelling, Sergeant. I wonder if this is a deliberate choice or not, as I note that, at the very least, Operation Mannequin uses the correct spelling. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 10:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleavis

Hey, I noticed that you seem to be a Paul Magrs fan. I wondered if you would be interested in reading my comment on Talk:Cleavis. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Discord

hey eps we think your discord got hacked its sending out wierd links to probably fake minecraft servers Editoronthewiki ☎ 21:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: Moving Pages

Ah! You're completely right. I totally forgot about moving links in that moment. Wont happen again. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 12:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

T:SPOIL

Your request on my talk page to lock a certain page from creation for the time being was, in and of itself, correct, but — er — not to reignite the flames of the recent debate, but surely you see that saying the names outright is even more obviously a spoiler-hazard than the previous business? There is basically only one context in which we'd want to creation-lock an as-yet-uncreated page about an actor. T:SPOIL matters, to a lot of readers and editors. I realise this was a tricky thing to convey without repeating the spoilers, but you could, for example, have advised me to check whether the pages of "all announced actors" had yet been locked, without naming any names.

(I've redacted your message rather than deleted it, since DrWHOCorrieFan said they'd rather I'd done that with theirs.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

They most definitively are not. User talk pages are the single most difficult-to-avoid part of the Wiki for the user in question. It so happens I already know of the casting announcement under discussion, but supposing I were spoiler-averse, where do you suppose I would be, now? It is due diligence 101 (doubly so for an admin) to check my talk page regularly! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: Editing other people's talk pages

Admins have the right to update links on other people's talk pages; I am not sure that other users have it by rights, in terms of precedent. Certainly T:UVAN itself doesn't give that right to them. It would probably be best to ask an admin to perform such mass link changes, or else to ask permission from the user whose page you want to edit. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Spoilers

Hi please note that the following page is in violation of the spoiler policy: User:Epsilon the Eternal/Ncuti Gatwa. Tardis:Where spoilers are allowed is very clear about where spoilers can be placed. You can either delete the information (and then re-add it when it is no longer a spoiler) or an admin can delete the page and later restore it if necessary. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 03:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Well it has been five days since I posted the above. If after a week the spoilers from this page haven't been removed, the page will be deleted. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 02:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Re List of future releases, I have a very hazy memory of a discussion (probably in the forums? and maybe by me?) where this was brought up, but there's nothing on its talk page or that of List of future Big Finish releases. Someone did ask about the existence of these pages on Talk:List of future Big Finish releases, and I answered that maybe it's considered a series page, but otherwise I don't know; I will check up on it and get back to you. If someone else remembers the original discussion, then I guess we could add it to Tardis:Where spoilers are allowed. Shambala108 ☎ 01:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

In-universe versions of these stories…

How's it hanging, Epsilon? Since you were the creator (iirc) of the "Doctor Who franchise in the DWU" navbox, I was wondering if you could direct me to where the in-universe versions of Christmas Invasion, New Earth, Smith and Jones, Voyage of the Damned, and The Pilot appeared? Cheers WaltK ☎ 19:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Re:Sandbox 3

That's a rather, well, unique case, since the work in question isn't a story, and is sorta kinda already a thing? See my discussion with OS12 at User talk:OncomingStorm12th/Archive 4#Question about Spoiler Policy and User talk:Najawin/Archive 2#Re:Spoiler policy. (Not exactly analogous, but it discusses how merchandise rules are not the same as story rules.) The work in question has also already had multiple "releases", and my understanding is that there's a version of it that some members of the public are playing. It's a complicated issue. Arguably the better argument is that User:Najawin/Sandbox 2 had spoilers when I made it. Which you could argue it did? Certainly no more so than a press release. Note that I'm actually in favor of a relaxation of the spoiler rules to a certain level, eg, to the level where we can actually create a page for a certain actor. But the proposal you've currently floated allows more than just "press release" style pages in sandboxes, it allows for rumors to be there as well, a la Series 14 (Doctor Who), which I just can't support. And in any event this is a separate proposal to the one Nate's floating and they should be made separately. Najawin ☎ 20:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Antonio Amaral

btw, did the issue with his likeness in Lytton ever get resolved? I was never interested in Lytton, so idk if he's shown up in it yet or not. Najawin ☎ 06:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: Re: Guestbook

Ok. It's an interesting concept. Bongo50 ☎ 06:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC DVD covers

Hi, I've been gathering every BBC DVD cover image on the wiki into one of my sandboxes, in order to see where there are any missing covers or duplicates.

Pop over and have a look, and feel free to upload any of the missing covers.

User:Doc77can/sandbox12

P.S. I'm messaging several users so check the upload log first.

Doc77can ☎ 20:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Petronella Osgood's... relative

Hi, Epsilon. I hadn't actually thought about that, but it's a good point. The only reference more concrete than vague "family connections" that I can think of at the moment is one where she gets cut off - in Call to Arms, Benton says that she reminds him of someone and she says "oh, you mean my--".

I'm going through a load of Kate and Osgood stories at the moment, so I'll keep my eyes peeled and my ears... also peeled for more concrete references to an actual relative. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 15:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hellscape 5 and 6

So policy requires someone to have listened to these particular audios to start a disinclusion debate over them. Do you know someone on here who's listening to Hellscape? Najawin ☎ 00:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, Epsilon the Eternal, and have a Happy New Year. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎ 11:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: International Electromatics

Hmm. Truth be told that the information in that revision, though added relatively recently, was derived from elsewhere on the Wiki which I believed to be true. I've been aware of that apparent "fact" for some years and it seemed to gel with my memory of the tie-in websites but now I can't seem to find it from what's avaliable on Wayback. MrThermomanPreacher ☎ 19:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-narrative fiction

Be my guest! The current plan is to simply suggest allowing non-narrative fiction but to note that many might also want to discuss nonlinear stories. While that won't be part of the main proposal, the forum dive suggested that the historical context of nonlinear stories was important to the overall discussion, and it's certainly a way we could go. Najawin ☎ 15:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Not the plan, but I think the context is important. (My current thought is to note at the end that if you want to discuss nonlinear stories to use a separate subheading and keep that discussion separate from the rest of the thread.) Najawin ☎ 16:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the notes, I've edited to reflect. As regarding your post, there are a few blanks in my timeline, and Scrooge's comment only fills in one of them, and that one incompletely. Namely, User:Chubby Potato's thread regarding TARDIS Type 40 Instruction Manual, we lost all of the posts on that thread and this was one of them. Scrooge's post doesn't actually reference anything from the deleted forums, it's entirely discussing things that are still available for us to see and are detailed in my history. (Though we disagree on the significance on Forum:Canonicity of Dalek Annuals. As far as I can tell the thread had no significant impact on the reasoning in other threads, and what did impact later rulings came before that thread. While the visual is cute, I wouldn't insist on the idea that the Dalek comic being the reason non-narrative fiction is invalid.)

There are at least three significant gaps still unaccounted for that might simply never be filled because they don't have answers and it just sort of happened. The first being User:Freethinker1of1's reference to a discussion at Tardis talk:Canon policy that doesn't seem to exist, the second being User:Tangerineduel referencing the idea that the FASA guides were made invalid because there was a suspicion that non narrative fiction would have authors making things up in order to fill a page count, and the third being the actual synthesis of narrative primacy as opposed to it just being vaguely implied by T:CANON. Neither I nor Scrooge, from what I can tell, can find where these gaps might be filled. Which is, quite frankly, maddening.

I can't comment on the other examples, but The Cosmology of the Spiral Politic is very clearly Type A. It refers to The City of the Saved as an existing place and the events of Warlords of Utopia as something that actually happened.

I absolutely despise the support/oppose/neutral/comments format. I supported the thread being brought up for discussion in the temporary forums specifically to argue against it. I would suggest, if you want to do something like that, that you reformat them to be in the exact opposite order, because in a forum thread comments should be the most important part of the issue and should be something everyone reads before making up their mind. Najawin ☎ 22:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

T:NO RW

You remember that there was an ongoing thread about the scope of T:NO RW when the forums closed, right? Part of it was about common sense inferences like these. (Specifically in how we write pages using verbs in the example I gave, but the policy implications would have been larger.) Current policy, as written, is pretty clearly against these statements. (Arguably they're T:BOUND to be at the start of pages through inaction, but not that many pages have them. I've found that they're largely on pages that User:Ebyabe created, or are artifacts from page rewrites that nobody bothered to remove.) Najawin ☎ 00:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Sum41Champ literally got banned not long ago for edit warring with these changes at Widow so I'm surprised to see him back and immediately doing it again, I'm even more surprised that Epsilon is also seemingly doing the same. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 00:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(Well, it wasn't the warring. It was repeated refusal to listen to admins and experienced users telling them to abide by T:NO RW as well as other policies. But, yes, Widow is the page in question that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Sum41Champ had been doing this on many other pages and has been blocked multiple times as a result.) Najawin ☎ 01:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That is by definition warring? Even if it is one-sided. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 01:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)