User talk:Timelydia1234

Categories

Hi please do not add categories to pages until you've edited with us for a while. We have a lot of category rules, and a good rule of thumb is: if a page is missing a category, there might be a reason. It's always a good idea to ask an admin if you're not sure thanks Shambala108 ☎ 03:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for one month for violating Tardis:No personal attacks at the discussion boards, specifically "Least Favorite Doctor?" Your comments, "Anyone one who says 9, 10 or 11 are deranged" and "@Bruce Wayne of Earth-1 its so embarrassing you think your right and you don’t know how stupid you are" violate the policy; the first one is directed in general at anyone who disagreed with you but the second was a direct personal attack at an individual. Incidentally you also reported the post that User:Anastasia Cousins made warning you about the policy. Do not do that in the future. Reporting posts is for posts that violate our policies. Shambala108 ☎ 18:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor/Appearances

Hey, there was a recent policy change about how we deal with appearance lists. We now allow invalid appearances in those lists. I highly recommend you join our discussions in the Temporary forums to provide feedback and your perspective to our discussions! More voices are always welcome, and it's a way to keep up with policy changes. Cheers! Najawin ☎ 00:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

im sorry that's stupid why would you put a invalid stories in appearances lists they are not canon so the doctor did not go on that adventure because its invalid this rule should be changed. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timelydia1234 (talk • contribs) .

In regards to User talk:Tsjadwtc, I think that you've misunderstood, actually. The exact quote is:

"Moreover, as proposed in the opening post, rule 3-failing (e.g. unreleased/unproduced) stories may now be added to lists of appearences as a separate section below the main list."@Bongo50

@Bongo50 specifically specified rule three failing stories go in a separate section, not regular invalid sources. You can ask @Bongo50 for clarification if you want. Many thanks, and happy editing.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Also to clarify about canon, our validity systems are fundamentally not the same as a canonicity system. As highlighted on T:VS:

"A valid source is one that we as a wiki believe satisfactorily and intentionally describes information and events in the Doctor Who universe. If a source is marked invalid, it is not because it is "worth less" or "didn't happen"; it simply means that due to some aspect(s) of the nature of the source, we don't consider it able to be used as a reliable and actual account of the DWU. Hence, two contradicting sources can be considered equally valid, while one that seems like it fits in may not be for the reasons below."T:VS (emphasis mine)

Many of our "invalid" sources are as such for technical reasons such as branching narratives or even lack of narratives, but this never meant that the author intended for them to be non-canonical. There is a big difference between invalid sources and non-canonical sources, and as per T:CANON, this Wiki does not care about canon.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Just butting in to say that if you felt that this was wrong, you should have taken the time to voice your arguments when the thread was active. When the thread in question was active, consensus was reached that this was how it should be done going forward. Just a heads up for next time you have an opinion on how the wiki should handle things. Danniesen ☎ 14:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

but why would you put adventures the doctor didn't actually gone because there invalid in appearances lists its stupid people are so dumb I swear – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timelydia1234 (talk • contribs) .

"adventures the doctor didn't actually [go on] because there invalid" The Doctor is a fictional character; they haven't "actually" gone on any adventures! That's just not what our validity system means. – n8 (☎) 14:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(Please sign your posts with 4 "~"s). I specifically have recommended you use the forums a few times, both in a general sense of "hey, people in discussions should use the forums" and in the particular of "hey, you in particular should use the forums because you're doing a fair bit of editing". But as others have stated, we have 4 main reasons why stories are invalid. (And invalid != not canon!!) If it breaks Rule 2, we don't cover it on this wiki at all, with some rare exceptions. If it breaks Rule 4, well, it's probably still notable enough to go on this list, if it's notable enough to be on this wiki. A licensed story that simply wasn't intended to be in the DWU? So and so still appeared in that story. (Note that our appearances lists are just that, lists of appearances. See Amy Pond - list of appearances. The character merely appears in The Time of the Doctor, but it's listed.) Rule 3 breakers get their own table, and Rule 1 breakers are honestly technical messes that we're trying to reevaluate at the moment. They're things like video games and such. Hardly the sort of thing to complain about, we just don't consider them valid because of internal policy reasons. Najawin ☎ 15:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi, there. I've had to fix or flag a couple of problems with your recent edits;

• You haven't used sources for pages like SARS-CoV-2, so we have no idea whether the information is accurate or where you got it from. The story the information comes from needs to be put at the end in brackets.
• Story titles need to be in italics, so it should be ''For Tonight We Might Die'', which comes up as For Tonight We Might Die.
• You called the coronavirus Coronavirus (Group). The "Group" part shouldn't have a capital letter.
• The plural of virus is "viruses", not "virus's". Apostrophes show belonging.
• I've reverted your edit on COVID-19 because the information doesn't seem to come from Sweet Revenge as your edit implied.

- Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 13:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)