User talk:NateBumber: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(→‎Pigeon German: new section)
Tag: 2017 source edit
 
(301 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Faction Paradox ==
<div id=tech>{{ArchCat}}
I completely understand my closure of the thread did not go the way you wanted. As someone who's repeatedly been on your side of the fence, I feel ya. It's rough when you've got a convincing argument, and someone -- worst of all someone you don't really know yet -- throws up a roadblock, maybe even for reasons you can't appreciate.
Welcome to my talk page! Seriously: you are welcome here. Feel free to call me '''n8'''.<br/>Please just remember to sign your messages with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>!<br />– [[User:NateBumber|NateBumber]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]])</div>


But it's important to understand some things about Tardis discussions.  As compared to many -- heck, I'll say ''almost all other'' -- wikis, we allow debate on a grand scale. Some wikis have no forum activity at all. Some would have shut down a debate like your thread after the first post. Instead, we invite discussion, and we want it to be vigorous and well-attended.
== Discord ==
I expect you knew the drill from the moment you saw the notification, but: h'llo, how've ye been, and where have ye been Discord-wise? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 17:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
: I know you checked in earlier today but I would be much obliged if you'd check responses to your message where you ''did'' check in, and, secondly, certain matters on the server we co-created recently. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 17:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


That said, they work under a basic convention that, since you're a relatively new editor with us, you might not yet have picked up on.  
== The War King's Homeworld ==
Would you be able to contribute to [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc/Sandbox/The War King's Homeworld]], so that the page can be reasonable before being merged into the main namespace? I think my current structure is good, it just needs quite a lot of summarising from ''[[The Book of the War (novel)|The Book of the War]]''. I will continue working on it, but having someone else there will be helpful. Hope your doing well, [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


We have a volunteer staff -- even I don't really get paid for my work here -- and so we don't have time for '''endless''' debates.  At some point -- maybe a week after the thread is open, maybe years -- the thread closes one way or another and we move on with our lives. Once a decision has been made and the thread has been closed (preferably by an admin who has not yet attended that thread), it's bad form to ''continue'' that debate outside the forum. 
== R4bp ==


Since you've been keyed up to debate this issue for a number of days now, I understand that you want to keep having it. Believe me, I'm the same way sometimes. But it's important to understand that a closing argument is not the same thing as an exhaustive one.  If a conversation is a relatively long and detailed one, it's not reasonable to expect that the closing argument will touch on every single point raised in the preceding discussion. And so it's not fair to come back and say to a closing admin, "Hey, what about this thing I said in post #23 and this other thing I said in post #89?"
I'll try to add that context. There's a reason I was so frustrated with quoting people and it took me days to think about how to do it. It's so easy when doing so to mischaracterize positions or present them in ways that could be interpreted in bad faith.


I and other admin who write closing arguments spend a lot of time editing them down to the ''most'' salient points.
As for the idea that
:This author clearly thought that an earlier story was connected or related to their current one, so we should be able to cite that story in the relevant context
I just don't see the case for ''validity'' here. Like. You could still do this in the bts section, and I'd support changing things so it goes into continuity instead. Validity is a more substantial business - it says not just that one story is talking to another ''in the particular context of that story'', but that we use the previously invalid story on our IU pages ''across the whole of the wiki''. And I don't see how the latter authorial intent of a completely disconnected author can ever get you there. I, frankly, do not care what Jonathan Morris's intent was about CoFD and how it might or might not relate to his own work. It's not his story. He doesn't get to usurp someone else's authorial intent on their own story. If Jonathan Morris ''didn't'' think CoFD was "really DWU", that doesn't change things, and if he thought it ''was'' that doesn't change things. Competing accounts are standard, and we solve it by saying that in one account X was held to have happened (where X is precisely what is shown, as there's no speculation) and in the other account Y is held to have happened (where Y is precisely what is shown, as there's no speculation). If we apply this same standard to validity we have the rules as prior to R4bp - where invalid stories, as written, are invalid, but specific references to them, insofar as they appear in valid sources, are valid.


However, because you're new with us and you have been extraordinarily respectful and well-reasoned in the thread, I'm going to answer ''some'' of the points arising in your latest message.
But my lack of interest in latter authorial intent is ultimately not an argument I think we can base wiki policy off of, for the reasons I expressed in the sandbox. So I'm not going down this route. (Perhaps we could argue that the lack of symmetry between IU accounts and OU validity here is an issue? An interesting argument that I might incorporate, but not one that I think is particularly compelling. It would more be for those who prefer things to have this sort of symmetry in the first place and would likely not convince anyone else in the slightest.)


In the thread, you offered two options: re-merging with Tardis or installing a new admin staff at FP.  I took you up on the second option, which means that '''one of your proposals was accepted'''. Yet in your latest message, you're suggesting that you weren't really serious about it, and you're distancing yourself from your own proposal. Now we're onto to some other thing that was never in the thread. Not fair.
As for [[Thread:231309]], I'm less and less convinced as to people pointing out the use of the word "canon" in the early days as if it somehow undermines the work done there as I've been perusing the archives. I don't ''agree'' with much of the work done, but the early editors were well aware that "canon" as used was simply a word to refer to what the wiki allowed for article coverage and it didn't refer to a broader notion of the term. It was, perhaps, proto-proto-validity. The thread was premised on fundamental misunderstandings of early decisions, as well as some particularly specific definitions in order to make its conclusions work.
 
Contrary to what you've been told by people who tried to edit there, there's nothing complicated about editing at FP that would in any way prevent the building of content there. No content page or policy page has '''ever''' been protected there, not even for an hour, since the split happened. I did a lot of work in 2012 to set up that wiki's basic structure -- wordmark, category tree, detailed instructions on how to edit the front page, some basic universal policies, site design -- so that an incoming group of editors would be set up for success. The claim that there is '''anything''' preventing the editing of the wiki to whatever standard FP enthusiasts would want is '''patently false'''.


Much of what exists there on the front page and some policy pages is absolutely '''placeholder text''', and the fact that it hasn't been changed since 2012 actually ''baffles'' both me and, I don't think it's wrong to say, SOTO. We've both wondered to each other why so much time is being applied to the debate rather than simply editing FP Wiki to your liking.
As for the idea that R4bp may be too small, perhaps, but I haven't written the conclusion yet! The basic idea is that if R4bp is to stay, we '''''have''''' to re-examine many other areas of our policies in radical ways and we probably also have to reform it because as it stands it's ever so slightly incoherent. We can either do that, get rid of it, or, just, wave our hands, say "validity is what we want it to be", and ignore everything. (But, uh, I'm not gonna say this in the thread, but I'll probably be pretty annoying in the future to anyone who votes for that option. "Huh, it seems like the argument you're making here requires logical consistency. It's a shame you explicitly voted against using that in our rules earlier." :P) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


You say that the FP Wiki has rules which prohibit writing articles there. '''So ''change'' them.''' There's only one policy page that has anything to do with what counts as a valid source, and it's very simply written. It's not protected, and never has been. It's also from another age, cause it speaks of "canon" in a way I would never do these days.  
:Also, to clarify,
::In the latter case, one is saying "This author clearly thought that an earlier story didn't count, so no one should be able to cite it anywhere, even in contexts where it might be relevant.
:If I understand you correctly this isn't what I'm suggesting. I'm not even sure what this would look like. An invalid story referring to a valid story as if it were part of the "invalid continuity", maybe? But idk how anyone thinks this is disqualifying, nobody has suggested it that I know of.


I think it's dumb, too, but '''the solution is just to edit it''', not vilify it. In fact, a participant to the FP thread ''has'' edited it, so it must be known that it is edit''able'', right?  I guess I just don't see the problem because it has such an ordinary, easy solution.
:Rather, it's that we're not clear whether or not an author thinks a previous work "counted", we're not clear whether they think their current work "counts", and since we use narrative to determine authorial intent now, we can go either way, we can attempt to reason that both works "count", and this is supposedly more useful to a reader (many will say this isn't true, but I think you and I both disagree), or we can say neither count. We invalidate or validate the two as a group now. Scrooge made a similar argument on my talk page. (Re:T:POINT) I do have a response, believe me. It's just not written up yet. (In short, I think Scrooge is radically incorrect about where the burden of proof lies in this scenario. I'll elaborate for the thread. The key to the issue is that ''one of these is already invalid,'' and this changes the dynamics of how we have to think about things. Scrooge has some reasoning to try to get around this, I don't believe it's successful. It will be discussed. Promise.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


You've suggested that even if the rule gets changed that there would be "unnecessary duplication of content". But I think that fails to grasp one of the central benefits of the Fandom platform.
::Now you've got me started thinking about topologies of validity. Dammit Nate. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
:::"Let validity, invalidity, and semivalidity be sigma algebras with the following properties..." - How my next forum thread after the R4bp one is going to start. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


There are plenty of closely-related wikis all over Fandom that have articles about the same topic written from different angles. What you'll get on [[disney:Tinker Bell]] is not the same article as [[w:c:disneyfairies:Tinker Bell]]; there's a good and useful difference. We ''actively'' try to make our actor pages ''Doctor Who''-specific, so [[Julian Glover]] is not the same as [[w:c:indianajones:Julian Glover]].  [[muppet:Yoda]] is not the same thing as [[starwars:Yoda]], nor the same thing as [[w:c:theclonewars:Yoda]].
== Re: Honourifics ==
No, I think you're good. This is a somewhat different proposal, and brings in different points of reference/rationales. But good of you to check! [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


This isn't duplication: it's '''specialisation'''.  For end users -- readers -- it will be very useful to have a clear distinction between the way that something is described within FP fiction, and the way that we find it in the main body of DW fiction. It's an exciting use of the Fandom platform -- not something to be regarded as second-class citizenry.  It allows you greater freedom to explore how <whatever> is treated by FP writers in a way that readers can better follow.  They can pull up one window at Tardis, one at FP, and literally compare the two. That's leveraging the software in a powerful and dynamic way that will provide more clarity to a reader than trying to hunt for FP material within the body of a larger article here. 
== Sabbath ==
Hey, re: ''Rag and a Bone'', hang on one deep-time minute here — was it actually licensed for the use of Sabbath? That seems non-obvious to me, and if not, then it wouldn't belong at "Sabbath Dei#In non-valid sources" any more than ''A Better World'' belongs at "Rose Tyler#In non-valid sources"… [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 17:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
: Ah, fair enough then! [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 18:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


And you ''know'' that other editors not familiar with the FP -- which is realistically to say the vast majority of the people who edit here -- are going to edit out FP material cause they don't know it or they view it as too minor to whatever topic they're editing. That was one of the things that was happening back in the day when we split. 
== Discord ==
Oi! Important news over there, as per usual… --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 11:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
:Ironically given [[Forum:Creating a Tardis Wiki Discord server|recently-expressed opinions]] (but of course 1:1 chats were e'er another matter) I must once again summon you over here fairly urgently… [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 15:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::You know the drill… [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
:::(…) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


The FP Wiki is a way to protect, clarify and amplify FP material. It's a way of making it possible to look at the DWU through the lens of FP stories. I honestly think the average reader would appreciate it, and that from an editorial standpoint, the clearest way to describe FP is from within its own wiki.
== About spoilers ==


I've been writing this thing forever and I know I haven't answered everything you've asked about. So I'll do one more and call it quits.
It's still a spoiler, based on other unreleased stories, to call that person the current Doctor before (at LEAST) 9 December. Without question.  -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 17:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
: No? Fourteen is definitely without a doubt the current Doctor from October 2022 until he steps down as the Doctor on TV. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 11:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
:: Took me a while to notice but "consecutive number" is unfounded as well. It goes: Power of the Doctor, Liberation 1 (Nov 2022) all the way through 14 (Nov 2023), Destination Skaro, CBeebies Bedtime Story, Star Beast, and Wild Blue Yonder (no, the uncredited cameo in the Hartnell drama is not the character the Fifteenth Doctor).
:: If we count the annual (anything else is pushing it) then it's Power of the Doctor, Liberation 1 (Nov 2022) through 11 (Aug 2023), four Annual stories of the Fourteenth Doctor, Fifteen in First Day of the Doctor, then three more Fourteen Annual stories (Sep 2023), Liberation 12-14 (Sep-Nov 2023), Destination Skaro, CBeebies, Star Beast, and Wild Blue Yonder. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 00:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


Yes, as a matter of technicality, you ''can'' create a link back to an article in a revision note and that will satisfy our license. But as I pointed out in my response, that's not as clear as simply having an intact revision history. And it's super laborious; you have to remember to do it every single time, which is going to try anyone's patience in the case of a remerge. But more to the point, a link is only as permanent as the thing to which it links. If the FP wiki were to become truly unusued, after a period of time it would be automatically archived and then the link would go ... nowhere. That's why I'm saying the best and clearest protection for people's copyrights is the current situation.  
== Welcome to the admin team! ==
<div style="border:solid 1px;-ms-border-radius:10px;-webkit-border-radius:10px;-o-border-radius:10px;-moz-border-radius:10px;border-radius:10px;padding:2em;margin:5%;max-width:870px;font-size:0.82em">
<div style=font-size:3em;font-family:georgia,serif;text-align:center;line-height:100%;font-family:georgia,serif;margin-bottom:1em>'''''So now you're an admin.'''''</div>
[[File:Hugh Grant 12th Doctor.jpg|thumb|250px|[[User:SOTO|''Look after the wiki for me... I've put a lot of work into it.'']]]]
<div style=font-size:1.5em;font-family:georgia,serif;>
And you know ''exactly'' what that means, right?  ''Well...'' There's no one "right" way to be an admin.


Well, this has been massively long and probably, in your view, incomplete.  For that I can only apologise -- and hope that the remainder of your holiday season is a good one. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 23:52: Wed 28 Dec 2016</span>
We all find our own paths.  But it's really important to think of yourself primarily as a caretaker who ''cleans up'' the space so that other people can use it. You're not "in charge" now.  '''You've just got more to do.'''
</div>
[[File:TARDIS staircase Laundro-Room of Doom.jpg|218px|thumb|''This calls for a proper tour!'']]
<div style="width:88%;margin-top:25px;border-radius:5px;padding-top:1px;margin-left:9.2px;font-size:1.05em;padding-left:3.75%;">
<span style="font-size:1.2em">'''''The mechanics of administration'''''</span>


One of the first things you'll want to do is check out a '''{{link|Help:User access levels#Administrators|gold|list of the things you can do now}}'''. That list is an important overview, but it doesn't tell you a whole lot about '''''how''''' to actually ''use'' your new abilities. You'll want to quickly move on to the '''{{link|Help:administrators' how-to guide|gold|administrator's how-to guide}}'''.  The guide explains, step-by-step, how to perform the basic actions of '''deletion''', '''merging''', '''restoration''', '''protection''', '''blocking''' and '''rollback''' — the five main tools in the administrators' toolbox. There are also several other more specific help pages to be found at '''{{link|:category:admin help|gold|the admin help hub}}'''.


== The Concept of War ==
But for now, you probably just want to watch some video, right?


Hello.. Holmes to Homes here.
You'll probably want to check out this video for an overview of the '''{{link|Help:Admin Dashboard|gold|Admin Dashboard}}''' to which you now have access, as well as some other basic tools of the trade:


The Concept of War is a story available on paperback (as of today) at limited pressings at some DW conventions, but it also sees an eBook version. At the Amazon Kindle store.  
<div style="text-align:center">[https://www.fandom.com/video/Ylr7uqmq/admin-rights-tools-roles-webinar <nowiki>[click here]</nowiki>]</div>


[[User:HolmestoHomes|HolmestoHomes]] [[User talk:HolmestoHomes|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:34, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
If you're not all that familiar with '''{{link|Special:SpecialPages|gold|special pages}}''', you'll probably want to check out the following overview. Although it is somewhat basic in parts, it probably will teach you at least ''one'' thing you didn't know.
[[File:Managing your wiki - review of tools & special pages|center|300px]]


== Input desired ==


Can you join in [[Thread:209497|this thread]]? --[[User:Pluto2|Pluto2]] ([[User talk:Pluto2|talk]]) 19:00, January 21, 2017 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:1.2em">'''''The art of administration'''''</span>


== Sutekh ==
One of the more difficult aspects of administration is knowing ''when'' to act. Remember, you're now a steward of the community.  It's your job to foster discussions and deal with inter-personal issues as they arise.  Wikia have prepared some great videos about this subject, '''all of which are highly recommended'''.  Please make sure that you view these at some point within the next week or so.


There is another matter of integration I predict it would be good to coordinate on.
First up is a video about encouraging community discussion:
[[file:Tips & Tools for Community Discussions|300px|center]]
Next comes a great roundtable about how to deal with trolling and vandalism. This is a particularly important video because its participants are all people you'll probably deal with now that your an admin. When admin contact Wikia, they most often deal with someone from ComDev (or CommunityDevelopment), and this video features some of the more visible members of that team.
[[file:Wikia Office Hours - Trolls & Vandalism|300px|center]]
And here is a video about attracting and retaining new users — something that should be of primary concern to all admins:
[[file:Wikia Wednesday - Attracting & Welcoming New Users|300px|center]]


From what little I've seen during my exploration of FP, [[Sutekh]] plays an important(?) role there. Last year, he's also been included as a major enemy in [[Doctor Who: The Tenth Doctor]] Year 2, which finished a little more than a month ago. I sincerely doubt those two storylines can be made into a continuous narrative. For once, FP [[Osiran]]s seem to have time travel technology, whereas the comic Osirans explicitly say that they consider time travel an abomination.


Since I don't know the story in FP and can't assume you to be familiar with the comic stories (apologies if you are), I wanted to give you heads up on the matter and a short synopsis of the comic side. Then we can try to decide if this is ''[[Lungbarrow (novel)|Lungbarrow]]'' vs. ''[[The Beginning (audio story)|The Beginning]]'' kind of contradiction or if they can still be woven together by claiming unspecified distinct time periods. I don't care if it's the former: DWU  is full of contradictions. (As a side note, I put a note on the page that it's missing stuff. I think [[Sutekh - list of appearances]] is complete with respect to comic stories. It would be good to complete it also for the FP stories, so that even when information is not added yet to the Wiki, at least the editors would know where to look for the missing parts and could then, say, contact the most prolific editor of the respective story.)
<span style="font-size:1.2em">'''''What now?'''''</span>


However, before giving you the synopsis of the comic side, I should, perhaps, ask whether you mind such spoilers. They are not spoilers in terms of this Wiki, but still. Please let me know. Also, I believe [[Anubis]] is updated and does tell the story of what happened.
These are obviously only a few topics of interest to admin. If you want help with anything more specific, be sure to get in touch with any of the existing '''{{link|admin|gold}}'''.


I myself have nothing against learning the FP side of Sutekh from talks/forums rather than from stories themselves.
[[File:Site-logo.png|250px|center]]
</div></div>


Oh, and I have a question: I presume his FP storyline does not contradict ''[[Pyramids of Mars (TV story)|Pyramids of Mars]]''. Am I right? [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:17, January 23, 2017 (UTC)
== Congratulations ==
 
I wanted to congratulate you for winning the administratorship. I'm sorry I didn't find the time to vote for you, but I'm glad to see you won. [[User:BananaClownMan|BananaClownMan]] [[User talk:BananaClownMan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 06:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
: Oh, so FP stories are pre ''Pyramids of Mars''! That's good news because the comic stories are very much post PoM, with an explicit visual reference to it no less. Therefore, I agree with you that the two are completely independent and do not interfere with each other. (Just for completeness purposes, there is a scene where the Tenth Doctor travels to ancient [[Phaester Osiris]] and talks to [[Sekhmet]] there and gets some piece of technology from there. But such small things should not matter. What I was afraid of was that Sutekh dies in a completely different matter or that his escape from death in PoM is explained differently.) Okay, so this actually would require almost no special management. And there certainly is no urgency to make any edits. Still, I prefer to manage potential subtle cases before editing rather than on the go.
: Incidentally, some time ago I've created a category tree for Osiran stories, with the usual subdivisions into comic, audio, etc. At that point I tried to find all Osiran stories and categorise them. But then FP was still invalid. I've added all the FP Sutekh stories you pointed out to [[:Category:Osiran audio stories]], but beyond that I can't do much. It would be good if, at some point, somebody could categorise FP stories into these categories, as again this makes it more visible for editors, not knowing FP well. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:33, January 23, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Faction Paradox ==
Hey NateBumber. I'm not at all familiar with FP (but plan to read/hear all stuff from it in the future). However, I do check up on [[Faction Paradox (series)]], and the page looks a bit confusing/ too crowded to me. For this reason, I made a [[User:OncomingStorm12th/Faction Paradox with tables|version of the page with tables]], instead of the current list. As an admin of the FP wiki, and one of the most avid FP editors here, I came to you to see if you think it looks good, and if it needs any improvement or factual changes. A few things I'd like to note:
:a) I moved the prologues/other short stories to a separate area of the page, because the page looks "cleaner" to me this way.
:b)Random Static did not get a table because making a table for just one book would be a bit stupid
:c) There is some info missing (specially from audios), and some info can be more specific regarding release dates, but I made that with just the info from [[Faction Paradox (series)]]. I'll later complete the tables
:d) Do you think it's worth creating individual pages for ''[[The Faction Paradox Protocols]]'' and ''[[The True History of Faction Paradox]]''? Most audio series get pages on the wiki. If we do, we can go to the ''Faction Paradox (series)'' page and add a {{tlx|Main}} template and redirect to the pages. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:01, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
::OK, I've now created pages to both audio series, ([[The Faction Paradox Protocols|here]] and [[The True History of Faction Paradox|here]]) and updated [[User:OncomingStorm12th/Faction Paradox with tables|my sandbox]]. They could certainly get a bit info on the intro, but I'll leave it up to you, since I have no knowledge about them.
::Would you suggestion of the novels table be to make something similar to the one present on [[Iris Wildthyme (series)]]? [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:18, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
:::Ok, so I made a few last changes on the tables, mostly coding stuff, and added the tables to the [[Faction Paradox (series)]] page. All that needs to be done now is add a intro to the page explaining the publication history, something similiar to [[BBC New Series Adventures#Publication history]], although this will probably be '''way''' shorter than that one. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:55, January 24, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Page moves ==
Hey, these last few days we've been a bit absent of admins, so, seeing no admin or other user told you this, I came. ''Please, understand this as a '''100%''' friendly note''. [[Thread:128198|On a previous thread]], it was decided only admins should rename pages. The reason? Short version: we, non admins, leave a redirect behind when we move pages. Admins don't. This means that they still have work to be done if we move pages ouserlves.
 
So if you come across a page that needs to be moved, you can put a {{tlx|Speedy rename}} or a {{tlx|Rename}} tag on the top of it. The {{tlx|Speedy rename}} is for pages whose name needs to be changed without discussion (like was the case with [[Justine McManus]]. You can even see that [[Justine (Alien Bodies)]] still exists, even though it is no longer necessary). The {{tlx|Speedy rename}} would be for cases were a discussion is necessary. Anyway, I myself (and most editors here, actually) have made this mistake in the past. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:48, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
:Oh, okay! I'd been wondering why Speedy Rename wasn't totally redundant; thank you for clarifying and letting me know. I just read through the rules yesterday, so I was puzzled when Amorkuz mentioned it in passing the other day; it's good to see a source and an explanation. I'll definitely keep this in mind when editing in the future. :) [[User:NateBumber|NateBumber]] [[User talk:NateBumber#top|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:14, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
:::Oh, it's fine. Also, one more tip: if you actually move the links, (though we're only supposed to do that if there's less than 10 links) there is a higher chance the page will be moved faster. To check how many links exist, and where these links are, you can go to [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere this page]. Then, you put the name you want moved (for example: the page "Boots" needs to be moved, but still has  [http://tardis.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Boots&namespace= 2 pages linking to it]. So, if you move the links from "Boots" to "Boots (The Lonely Clock)", and change the parameter from "no" to "yes" on that page, it'll probably get moved a lot faster). [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:30, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Apology ==
 
I sincerely regret that today's discussions descended into less than friendly conversations. I genuinely valued and continue to value our collaboration yesterday on FP. As, perhaps, you have already learned, I am passionate about DWU and this Wiki, as are many of us, and would fight for my opinions. Please be assured that, despite my snarkiest comments, I recognise my opponents as equals and respect them and their opinions. In this respect, I would like to assure you that the "shoving down the throat" remark you've read in my private conversation with another editor, did not encompass you (or Pluto2, for that matter) but referred exclusively to Fwhiffahder, specifically to him branding all who oppose the inclusion of Magrs's stories into this Wiki as "f****** bastards". I protested this phrase then to him personally, I oppose it now. And I strongly believe that this is, if anything, a mild reaction to such a phrase. I'm afraid, his insistence on keeping this phrase on the front page of his Wiki, including restoring it twice after other editors' attempts to make it less offensive, has robbed him of my respect completely. Despite having absolutely no respect for him, which is demonstrably mutual, I still believe to this moment that I have not said anything that would be offensive or not factual. Unpleasant, yes, but there is no reason for me to be pleasant to him. I would also like you to know that, in the same span of time, he called me an "idiot", easily a stronger insult than anything I said today. As I said to that other user, I am genuinely sad that Paul Magrs has been poisoned for me and forever connected to the "f****** bastards" remark. But I'm afraid, this will not change. So I will continue fighting against improper (from my point of view) inclusions of his work. At the same time, I can promise to be fair and not fight for the sake of the fight. In other words, I will always bow down to genuine evidence. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:29, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
 
: I have apologised before. Out of respect for you, I will try to parse that remark once again, for the second and last time. But, of course, nothing prevents you from thinking I only wrote it this way, secretly trying to attack you but in a clever enough way as to avoid any danger of violating the personal attack rules.
: So there were three statements in that remark: shoving down the throat, pushing Magrs and three People Who Love Invalid Stories. I just reread what I wrote in fear I was still too harsh fresh from the heat of the debate. But I did write what I meant. "Shoving" is explicitly applied to one user only, which is not you. The other two do apply to you. I do believe you were pushing Magrs work. If this term is offensive to you or if it is offensive to you that I might be pushing back, there is nothing I can do. I don't even see a reason to apologise for having a different opinion and for defending it. As for the "cabal" of three, [[User:DENCH-and-PALMER|one of them]] just happens to be my "pal" as he would say. Whether you believe me or not, I am capable of respecting him (and mourning his departure) without trusting him to properly vet invalid stories due to his self-proclaimed bias. I am equally capable of respecting you without trusting you to properly vet Magrs works due to your [[User:NateBumber|self-proclaimed bias]] for Obverse publishers.
: What I valued in our discussions was that you argued based on content rather than on ideology and preferences. However adversarial I might seem or be, that is all I ever try to achieve in discussions. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:54, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
 
== RE: LEGO Batman ==
 
Thanks! That means a whole lot actually. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|Talk]]) 20:31, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
 
:And I'm going to warn you to refrain in future from calling people who disagree with you "confused naysayers". Take a look at [[Tardis:No personal attacks]] when you have some free time. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:36, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
 
:: That's a pretty good point, actually. I think both sides of the argument in this discussion have their merits! If anything, I'm the "naysayer." [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|Talk]]) 06:05, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
 
::: I will let admins determine what constitutes an attack. I would, however, like to clarify that "not identifying anyone by name" did not make this statement impersonal. I was aware of this statement and clearly understood myself to be named as one of the "confused naysayers". With that I wish you happy editing and eagerly await more information on [[Rump Parliament]] from FP. And yes, too many people have been banned recently. I hope that all of us can stay civil and avoid more losses. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:05, February 27, 2017 (UTC)
 
I don't really understand what part of [[Tardis:No personal attacks]] is so hard to understand here. It's meant to explain the wiki's intolerance for personal attacks. It's not meant to be a list of bad things that someone can then  creatively get around and then say, "It's not on the list".
 
For the education of anyone interested, [[User:CzechOut]] explains this pretty thoroughly at [[User_talk:SOTO/Archive_1#Discussion habits]]. Also, for a clear example of how/why we enforce this rule, please see [[Forum:What about Bob?]]. Thanks. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:10, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
 
:You're not in any danger of being banned. I just wanted to clarify how seriously we take [[Tardis:No personal attacks]]. Especially since an online forum like this doesn't allow a user to show tone of voice or facial expression — we can only go by someone's words. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:32, February 28, 2017 (UTC)
 
== RE: S10 EPISODE TITLES SOURCE ==
The trouble is that the page doesn't exist. I know the magazine issue exists, but you gave a source that doesn't exist on this Wikia. There's no information about it on this Wikia yet. That means it can't be used as a source. But you can use that picture you also added as a source. :)
I wouldn't just remove it without reason. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:09, April 5, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Edit summaries ==
 
Hi! Please do not post anything that might be a spoiler in your edit summaries. Please review [[Tardis:Spoiler policy]] and [[Tardis:Edit summary]]. Thanks. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:28, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
 
== House Dvora ==
 
Was Romana explicitly said to be a member of House Dvora within a story? If not, I think adding the category is a speculation, even if the house was obviously named after her (but not so obviously in-universe). [[User:JagoAndLitefoot|JagoAndLitefoot]] [[User talk:JagoAndLitefoot|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:23, August 9, 2017 (UTC)
:Thing is, based on the general rules of this wiki, if she's not stated to be of House Dvora explicitly, it's best to consider it speculation, and only maybe state it in the behind the scenes section. [[User:JagoAndLitefoot|JagoAndLitefoot]] [[User talk:JagoAndLitefoot|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:30, August 10, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Apology ==
 
Sorry. I remember your ''Interference'' request and think it's a good idea (I'll need to look at it afresh of course). I'll get back to you. It's just things keep popping up. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:34, August 15, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Re:Interference ==
 
Hi! Yeah, I've learned the hard way not to take a stand on anything. I suggest you ask [[User:CzechOut]]'s opinion, especially since the issue of how to define multi-part episodes/stories has still not been resolved at [[Thread:183627]]. Thanks for your concern, and I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Thanks, [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:17, September 4, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Re: admins ==
 
Hi! I wanted to address the concerns you posted at [[Talk:First Doctor (The Brain of Morbius)]], but since it's off-topic I'm posting here.
 
Just for the record, I've been an admin for four-and-a-half years, and since then three admins have been added, starting with [[User:SOTO]] at the end of 2014, with [[User:PicassoAndPringles]] and [[User:Amorkuz]] some time after that. In addition, there have been at least two users that I know of who have been offered the position (but who very wisely turned it down).
 
It's not really a matter of having enough active admins; there are a couple of different things going on that (though I can't speak for the other admins) I think might be the problem:
* There have been a ton of forum posts, especially inclusion debates, of late. These don't always go the way users want them to go ([[Tardis:Valid sources]] is an especially complex set of rules), and some users are very vocal about expressing their, frankly, anger (we've even had one long-time user earn a long block for repeatedly criticizing admins for their decisions). This makes it harder for an admin to want to venture into a debate and make a decision.
* From my own personal experience, I've had many occasions where I've made a decision, only for another admin to overturn my decision. It's happened so many times that I'd rather not waste my time; instead I have to settle for just reminding users that certain decisions need admin approval.
 
I know this doesn't really help the problem, but I wanted to let you know that your concern was at least heard. Thanks for your attention, [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:17, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
 
== BC dates ==
 
Hi, you posted a question at [[Talk:6000000000]]. The main article was deleted, but the talk page remains and I answered your question there, if you're still interested. Thanks, [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:03, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Clockwork clean up ==
 
Thank you for improving the page as in replacing incorrect information with correct one. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:57, October 19, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Chapterhouse 5 ==
 
Just to let you know: I'm not ignoring you. I just need a guaranteed in advance sufficient continuous quantum of time to give your reply its proper due. In the meantime, I can only commend you for doing proper, honest-to-god research. I should also clarify that by downgrading to rename I wasn't arguing against it being renamed. I just really lacked context to do it on the fly. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:21, October 29, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Unfinished Interference ==
 
By the way, as [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] wanted to know what [[User:CzechOut|CzechOut]] thinks about it, the move is postponed pending his opinion. To expedite things, you may want to ask him about it. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:51, November 18, 2017 (UTC)
:I'm against merging the two ''Interference'' novel pages.
 
:A novel is much more dense than a TV serial. '''Each novel''' in this duology will have many more references than can be made to a single TV episode. It's more useful to our readership that we're able to cite one of the two novels. Merging them would be to throw away a level of citational accuracy for no strong reason. (Examples: Sam says in Book 2 that she once had sex with Fitz; K9 Mk III is shown to be capable of detecting artron energy in Book 1.)
 
:Morevoer, they've been separated since they first appeared on the wiki '''a decade ago''', making their link lists distinct at this point. It would involve a kind of busy work to go back and make them a single list, since it's better for SEO to actually link to the correct page rather than using mere redirects. 
 
:Also, since I've brought up SEO, it's important to note that the titles of these two works are '''Interference - Book One''' and '''Interference - Book Two'''. From a technical standpoint, we actually ''want'' people to be able to enter "interference book one" or "interference book two" into their search bar, and for our page to come up first. And that's the case in Google right now. '''We are the number one page in Google for the ''proper'' name of these books.''' That would ''not'' be the case if we changed these pages to something that '''is ''not'' their name''': the common noun, '''Interference'''. 
 
:They also have distinct ISBN numbers, making them separate things.  Were there a collected edition, as there are for trade paperbacks of comic books, there might be an argument for a page called '''Interference (novel)''' -- but there's no such animal. And even so, the separate pages would still exist on this wiki, since those are genuine products.
 
:Finally, our naming conventions aren't quite as black and white as you aver. Your examples neatly avoid [[T:SERIALS|our treatment]] of ''[[Children of Earth]]'', where we do indeed have separate pages for each part of a multi-part story. And again, the rules for TV pages -- even if they were uniformly applied to TV -- do not clearly apply to novels, since novels have so much more content than TV episodes.
 
:At the end of the day, the reasons for keeping them separate are stronger than the ones you've given for merger. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 14:15: Mon 20 Nov 2017</span> 14:15, November 20, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Now we are six hundred ==
 
The rule "valid until proved otherwise" is more complex than this phrasing suggests. I would agree with you when a release is of a standard type, just in a new place. We did not discuss the validity of "The New Series" range of Big Finish or the ascendance of Candy Jar Books. There indeed it is hard to find why they should be invalid. The situation is not at all so simple when the released thing is innovative/creative. For instance, Big Finish decided to spice up the [[The First Doctor: Volume Two trailer (audio story)|trailer]] to ''[[The First Doctor: Volume Two (audio anthology)|the second volume of First Doctor companion chronicles]]'' by making it more or less a linking narrative between the four stories of the box set. But because it is a trailer, which is not a typical source of (stand-alone) narratives, this cannot be valid until [[Thread:224324]] concludes. What we have in ''[[Now We Are Six Hundred (anthology)|Now We Are Six Hundred]]'' is a completely new genre, according to their self-description: "the first volume of ''Doctor Who'' verse published". We cannot treat them as valid by analogy then. There is but one course of actions: discussing it at the Inclusion debates.
 
But there is more to it than that. Short poems are not exactly the genre famous for narratives. I wonder how many of Shakespear's sonnets can be considered narrative stories. I'm not saying that poems cannot contain narrative. But they don't more often than do. There are definitely non-narrative poems in the book. This is a sharp contrast to even short stories, which are, in overwhelming majority, narrative-based. In other words, at least some of the poems in the book are not stories (violate Rule 1 of [[T:VS]]). And this means that, in order to validate some of the poems, we need first to come up with reasonable criteria for determining which poems are stories and which are not. The fact that one (or several) editors feel this particular poem has narrative should not make it valid as it creates a precedent without a policy to match, a recipe for chaos. Finally, it should be mentioned that the format is (or mimics) a children's book. The self-description calls it "whimsical". This raises a possibility that this is akin to a parody. In fact, the children orientation is arguably the only reason we had a [[Thread:215070|discussion about ''Dr. Men'']]. Mind you it was a very short discussion as there wasn't really a problem. But we did due diligence. I believe these poems are not as clear cut. But at any rate, it needs to be discussed by the community rather than decided ad hoc, one poem by one editor, another by another.
 
Don't get me wrong. I am not arguing to keep them invalid forever. I did not yet form an opinion about all of them (though, as I said, some are clearly non-stories). I just want to be able to point any newbie to a closed "Inclusion debates" thread when they start ridiculing us for counting "some children's stuff". I had the pleasure of doing just that with Dr. Men recently, so I can attest that people may have very different opinions on such matters. Pointing them to a principled in-depth discussion goes a long way to establishing the base line that things are not random here on the wiki and they should not start changing stuff based on their own opinions. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:49, November 25, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Re: spoilers ==
 
Hi! Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I had relatives over the holiday weekend and didn't have much time online.
 
You definitely didn't break the spoiler policy, but your post could have led less experienced users to respond with spoilers. Unfortunately, most users don't have any idea just how strict our spoiler policy is. They might know not to post plot information, but they think that it's ok to post cast information, trailers, story titles, etc. Therefore, I decided to act pre-emptively. If a situation comes up like you described, we can then discuss it, but it's better to just leave it for now. Thanks for your understanding, [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:46, November 27, 2017 (UTC)
 
== Pigeon German ==
 
In case you are interested, "'''die''' Spinne" means "spider" in German [https://dict.leo.org/englisch-deutsch/Spinne] and it must be feminine. Unfortunately, it is not trivial for an English speaker to get the gender system of German, so the masculine "der Spinne" is wrong unless it is used in German in the so-called dative (or possibly genitive) case. This case-based usage is not reproducible in English though (apparently, the only remaining vestiges of the dative case in English is in "methinks"). Anyway, I don't know if {{w|Die Spinne}} has any relevance there. Just keep in mind that the German words used are slightly bastardised, whether by design or or not, I cannot say. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:36, November 29, 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:56, 29 January 2024

Archive.png
 Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5
Welcome to my talk page! Seriously: you are welcome here. Feel free to call me n8.
Please just remember to sign your messages with ~~~~!
– NateBumber (☎)

Discord[[edit source]]

I expect you knew the drill from the moment you saw the notification, but: h'llo, how've ye been, and where have ye been Discord-wise? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I know you checked in earlier today but I would be much obliged if you'd check responses to your message where you did check in, and, secondly, certain matters on the server we co-created recently. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The War King's Homeworld[[edit source]]

Would you be able to contribute to User:Cousin Ettolrhc/Sandbox/The War King's Homeworld, so that the page can be reasonable before being merged into the main namespace? I think my current structure is good, it just needs quite a lot of summarising from The Book of the War. I will continue working on it, but having someone else there will be helpful. Hope your doing well, Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 13:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

R4bp[[edit source]]

I'll try to add that context. There's a reason I was so frustrated with quoting people and it took me days to think about how to do it. It's so easy when doing so to mischaracterize positions or present them in ways that could be interpreted in bad faith.

As for the idea that

This author clearly thought that an earlier story was connected or related to their current one, so we should be able to cite that story in the relevant context

I just don't see the case for validity here. Like. You could still do this in the bts section, and I'd support changing things so it goes into continuity instead. Validity is a more substantial business - it says not just that one story is talking to another in the particular context of that story, but that we use the previously invalid story on our IU pages across the whole of the wiki. And I don't see how the latter authorial intent of a completely disconnected author can ever get you there. I, frankly, do not care what Jonathan Morris's intent was about CoFD and how it might or might not relate to his own work. It's not his story. He doesn't get to usurp someone else's authorial intent on their own story. If Jonathan Morris didn't think CoFD was "really DWU", that doesn't change things, and if he thought it was that doesn't change things. Competing accounts are standard, and we solve it by saying that in one account X was held to have happened (where X is precisely what is shown, as there's no speculation) and in the other account Y is held to have happened (where Y is precisely what is shown, as there's no speculation). If we apply this same standard to validity we have the rules as prior to R4bp - where invalid stories, as written, are invalid, but specific references to them, insofar as they appear in valid sources, are valid.

But my lack of interest in latter authorial intent is ultimately not an argument I think we can base wiki policy off of, for the reasons I expressed in the sandbox. So I'm not going down this route. (Perhaps we could argue that the lack of symmetry between IU accounts and OU validity here is an issue? An interesting argument that I might incorporate, but not one that I think is particularly compelling. It would more be for those who prefer things to have this sort of symmetry in the first place and would likely not convince anyone else in the slightest.)

As for Thread:231309, I'm less and less convinced as to people pointing out the use of the word "canon" in the early days as if it somehow undermines the work done there as I've been perusing the archives. I don't agree with much of the work done, but the early editors were well aware that "canon" as used was simply a word to refer to what the wiki allowed for article coverage and it didn't refer to a broader notion of the term. It was, perhaps, proto-proto-validity. The thread was premised on fundamental misunderstandings of early decisions, as well as some particularly specific definitions in order to make its conclusions work.

As for the idea that R4bp may be too small, perhaps, but I haven't written the conclusion yet! The basic idea is that if R4bp is to stay, we have to re-examine many other areas of our policies in radical ways and we probably also have to reform it because as it stands it's ever so slightly incoherent. We can either do that, get rid of it, or, just, wave our hands, say "validity is what we want it to be", and ignore everything. (But, uh, I'm not gonna say this in the thread, but I'll probably be pretty annoying in the future to anyone who votes for that option. "Huh, it seems like the argument you're making here requires logical consistency. It's a shame you explicitly voted against using that in our rules earlier." :P) Najawin ☎ 17:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, to clarify,
In the latter case, one is saying "This author clearly thought that an earlier story didn't count, so no one should be able to cite it anywhere, even in contexts where it might be relevant.
If I understand you correctly this isn't what I'm suggesting. I'm not even sure what this would look like. An invalid story referring to a valid story as if it were part of the "invalid continuity", maybe? But idk how anyone thinks this is disqualifying, nobody has suggested it that I know of.
Rather, it's that we're not clear whether or not an author thinks a previous work "counted", we're not clear whether they think their current work "counts", and since we use narrative to determine authorial intent now, we can go either way, we can attempt to reason that both works "count", and this is supposedly more useful to a reader (many will say this isn't true, but I think you and I both disagree), or we can say neither count. We invalidate or validate the two as a group now. Scrooge made a similar argument on my talk page. (Re:T:POINT) I do have a response, believe me. It's just not written up yet. (In short, I think Scrooge is radically incorrect about where the burden of proof lies in this scenario. I'll elaborate for the thread. The key to the issue is that one of these is already invalid, and this changes the dynamics of how we have to think about things. Scrooge has some reasoning to try to get around this, I don't believe it's successful. It will be discussed. Promise.) Najawin ☎ 19:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Now you've got me started thinking about topologies of validity. Dammit Nate. Najawin ☎ 22:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
"Let validity, invalidity, and semivalidity be sigma algebras with the following properties..." - How my next forum thread after the R4bp one is going to start. Najawin ☎ 22:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Honourifics[[edit source]]

No, I think you're good. This is a somewhat different proposal, and brings in different points of reference/rationales. But good of you to check! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sabbath[[edit source]]

Hey, re: Rag and a Bone, hang on one deep-time minute here — was it actually licensed for the use of Sabbath? That seems non-obvious to me, and if not, then it wouldn't belong at "Sabbath Dei#In non-valid sources" any more than A Better World belongs at "Rose Tyler#In non-valid sources"… Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough then! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Discord[[edit source]]

Oi! Important news over there, as per usual… --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ironically given recently-expressed opinions (but of course 1:1 chats were e'er another matter) I must once again summon you over here fairly urgently… Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
You know the drill… Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
(…) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

About spoilers[[edit source]]

It's still a spoiler, based on other unreleased stories, to call that person the current Doctor before (at LEAST) 9 December. Without question. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No? Fourteen is definitely without a doubt the current Doctor from October 2022 until he steps down as the Doctor on TV. -- Tybort (talk page) 11:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Took me a while to notice but "consecutive number" is unfounded as well. It goes: Power of the Doctor, Liberation 1 (Nov 2022) all the way through 14 (Nov 2023), Destination Skaro, CBeebies Bedtime Story, Star Beast, and Wild Blue Yonder (no, the uncredited cameo in the Hartnell drama is not the character the Fifteenth Doctor).
If we count the annual (anything else is pushing it) then it's Power of the Doctor, Liberation 1 (Nov 2022) through 11 (Aug 2023), four Annual stories of the Fourteenth Doctor, Fifteen in First Day of the Doctor, then three more Fourteen Annual stories (Sep 2023), Liberation 12-14 (Sep-Nov 2023), Destination Skaro, CBeebies, Star Beast, and Wild Blue Yonder. -- Tybort (talk page) 00:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the admin team![[edit source]]

So now you're an admin.
Look after the wiki for me... I've put a lot of work into it.

And you know exactly what that means, right? Well... There's no one "right" way to be an admin.

We all find our own paths. But it's really important to think of yourself primarily as a caretaker who cleans up the space so that other people can use it. You're not "in charge" now. You've just got more to do.

This calls for a proper tour!

The mechanics of administration

One of the first things you'll want to do is check out a list of the things you can do now. That list is an important overview, but it doesn't tell you a whole lot about how to actually use your new abilities. You'll want to quickly move on to the administrator's how-to guide. The guide explains, step-by-step, how to perform the basic actions of deletion, merging, restoration, protection, blocking and rollback — the five main tools in the administrators' toolbox. There are also several other more specific help pages to be found at the admin help hub.

But for now, you probably just want to watch some video, right?

You'll probably want to check out this video for an overview of the Admin Dashboard to which you now have access, as well as some other basic tools of the trade:

If you're not all that familiar with special pages, you'll probably want to check out the following overview. Although it is somewhat basic in parts, it probably will teach you at least one thing you didn't know.

File:Managing your wiki - review of tools & special pages


The art of administration

One of the more difficult aspects of administration is knowing when to act. Remember, you're now a steward of the community. It's your job to foster discussions and deal with inter-personal issues as they arise. Wikia have prepared some great videos about this subject, all of which are highly recommended. Please make sure that you view these at some point within the next week or so.

First up is a video about encouraging community discussion:

File:Tips & Tools for Community Discussions

Next comes a great roundtable about how to deal with trolling and vandalism. This is a particularly important video because its participants are all people you'll probably deal with now that your an admin. When admin contact Wikia, they most often deal with someone from ComDev (or CommunityDevelopment), and this video features some of the more visible members of that team.

File:Wikia Office Hours - Trolls & Vandalism

And here is a video about attracting and retaining new users — something that should be of primary concern to all admins:

File:Wikia Wednesday - Attracting & Welcoming New Users


What now?

These are obviously only a few topics of interest to admin. If you want help with anything more specific, be sure to get in touch with any of the existing admin.

Site-logo.png

Congratulations[[edit source]]

I wanted to congratulate you for winning the administratorship. I'm sorry I didn't find the time to vote for you, but I'm glad to see you won. BananaClownMan ☎ 06:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NateBumber&oldid=3699470"