User talk:NateBumber: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit
 
(223 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div id=tech>{{ArchCat}}
<div id=tech>{{ArchCat}}
Welcome to my Talk Page! To save time, you can call me '''N8'''.<br />
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>
Please remember to sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> so I can see who you are.<br />
– [[User:NateBumber|<span title="User:NateBumber">N8</span>]] ([[User_talk:NateBumber|<span title="Leave me a note">☎</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/NateBumber|<span title="Spy on my edits">👁️</span>]])
</div>


== Forum post ==
== Discord ==
No problem, but in the future, if someone has replied to or referenced your post, you must correct it in a new post, not in the original. This is to avoid confusion. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:46, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
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)


== Re: 10000 ==
== The War King's Homeworld ==
Hi, I'm not going to go over every point made in the original forum threads, but my main concern came from comments (or quotes) by the author regarding other people using his licensed characters. This was mostly mentioned in the original post, so we don't have a record for it, but that was my concern, that the freedom with this licensing would lead to later abuse. Since you've participated in many inclusion debates you will probably have noticed that there are users on this wiki who will vote yes for inclusion for pretty much anything that comes along. There was an earlier inclusion debate (and I spent a lot of time looking for it and still hope to find it) where [[User:CzechOut]] decided that the story in question was not worth including because of other issues it would cause (and, since I can't find it yet, I don't remember the details). Sometimes we have to vote against something because including it isn't worth the trouble it could/will cause.
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)


And please don't nit-pick my words into claiming that this decision now means that Benny and Iris, two long-standing series on this wiki, should be declared invalid. They are not even remotely similar to this case.
== R4bp ==


As for your questions about Death's Head, I didn't close the one of those that allowed inclusion, but it was established long ago that most of the Marvel stuff '''is not valid''', just because one or two stories are.  
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.


Basically what this one boiled down to is that three admins felt this work did not follow our requirements, and while I tried to address several points in my closing post (obviously not making myself very clear), it's the issues raised by these three admins that pointed me in the direction I took.
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.


Hope this answers your questions. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:42, October 23, 2019 (UTC)
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.)


== "The Minister of Chance" ==
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.
I didn't know it at the time, but I certainly do now. Thank you nevertheless!


And indeed, I intended to restart the inclusion debate on it when I'm fully caught-up, although actually, you might do it, if you're more knowledgeable about it than ?
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)


See — don't know if you're aware — there ''was'' a Minister of Chance inclusion debate, closed because… the author doesn't have the rights to the Time Lord species, and so this technically cannot be the same Minister of Chance. Which, I mean, is IMO an unbelievably weak sort of rationale given that by this same reasoning Iris Wildthyme and Faction Paradox should be invalidated ''en masse'' even though the decision in both ''these'' debates was that no, the character is still the character even if the story isn't specifically allowed to ''say'' they're a Time Lord. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:21, December 13, 2019 (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.


== Re: NPA ==
: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)


Hi, there are a couple of things I want to say about the post in question.
::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)
* First of all, I was merely trying to restrain some of the crap that we had in the first two versions of this debate, where we had people constantly accusing each other of off-topic, personal attacks, etc. My main goal was to keep everyone else on track.
:::"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)
* Second, while your reading of [[Tardis:No personal attacks]] makes theoretical sense, it has two practical flaws:
** First, only admins can block people, so obviously admins have a say in the matter.
** Second, many new users don't realize how strict we want to be about personal attacks. Many sites allow all kinds of rude crap out there, to the point that some people think that's the norm. That's why admins have to step in and define personal attacks for people who don't realize that we don't allow that.
I have noticed several times in the past that you have gone to great lengths to make sure someone isn't offended by something you've said. Hopefully you would appreciate having admin input to protect you from someone who might accuse you of personal attacks.


Thanks for your attention. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:19, January 12, 2020 (UTC)
== 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)


:Yes and that balance is better than Universe C, where people get offended easily, '''even when one of their edits get reverted''', and run to an admin complaining of personal attacks by users who never meant such a thing. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:27, January 14, 2020 (UTC)
== 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)


== It would have been impolite not to respond ==
== 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)


Oh, Nate, the ever polite, ever sincere editor, who always tries to follow all wiki policies and the general rules set out in Wikipedia. At least, here on the wiki. Outside, you are free to say exactly the opposite (as I demonstrated with "nobody wants a free for all" on the wiki vs. "there is no gatekeeping" outside the wiki) example. You can even summarily criticise and condemn the whole wiki community, as if you are not a part of it. But, just like there is no explicit policy against self-publishers, no explicit policy against publications on blogs, there is no explicit policy against hypocrisy. In fact, there is a policy for hypocrisy. [[Help:Assume good faith]] prohibits anyone from even suggesting that the reason for the discrepancy between your behaviour here and your behaviour outside might be because of an ulterior motive, such as, for instance,
== About spoilers ==
{{quote|I'm working on a project that may or may not turn into a new Doctor Who spinoff. If it did, I'd obviously rather it be valid on the wiki than the opposite.|NateBumber on his goals in inclusion debates|User_talk:Amorkuz/Archive_6#Re: The Body in Question}}


Nor am I allowed to treat your repeated attempts to get some personal information out of me (see, e.g., the [[Special:Diff/2738271|second attempt to get me to do a podcast]]) as phishing. Asking once I could understand. But insisting after the first rejection? How does this comply with the FANDOM Terms of Use, specifically this part:
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)
{{quote|You agree not to use the Service to: Post or transmit any communication or solicitation designed or intended to obtain password, account, or private information from any Fandom user|ToU: No private information solicitation|https://www.fandom.com/terms-of-use}}
: 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)
A user was recently indefinitely blocked for exactly the same attempt (see the block message from [[User:CzechOut|CzechOut]] at [[User talk:Time Lord#Soliciting email addresses from other users]]). Of course, a podcast is a much more fertile ground for extracting private details. But some form of external communication was clearly required to initiate the process. You would have gotten some personal data on me one way or another, were I to agree. Since I am not allowed to suggest foul play on your part, I guess, we will have to wait and see '''whether FANDOM cares about protecting my personal information from unwanted solicitation'''.
:: 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)


I truly admire how you and other authors learned to weaponise [[T:SPOIL]] against disclosing your conflicts of interests. If somebody is hiding their involvement with a particular person or publisher, as the claim goes, the wiki policy bars them from disclosing this, until at least the publication of the story. In the meantime, they are free to participate in the inclusion debates, edit relevant pages in preparation for the publication. On the other hand, if somebody calls them out on the apparent and provable conflict of interests, T:SPOIL is used to quash such complaints, even if the complaint provides absolutely no details of any stories. It is truly beautiful in its simplicity. Of course, you personally always claim to be a Wikipedian and follow their best practices. But their policies on disclosing conflicts of interest [[Wikipedia:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia]], which by the way relies in part on US federal law and, in this part, is not optional,---these policies you summarily ignore despite me repeatedly informing you about them. As I said before, this wiki has no policy against hypocrisy.
== 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.


It is also beautiful to see how [[T:FORUM]] is used to disqualify any information critical of the author/publisher whose validity is being pushed. One is not allowed to compare the case under consideration with the past practices because they are supposed to be "off-topic". So, in cases when the only source of information is a blog fully controlled by the author, validity is almost guaranteed. Well, in case of initial sloppiness, it happens after the blog is cleaned up based on initial criticism.
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>
Needless to say, none of these applications of our rules to cover up any negative information were envisioned when the rules were written. Firstly, because authors were not envisioned as an active party in these debates. Secondly, because it was hard to imagine an episode, or a printed book, or an interview printed in DWM modified in order to better fit our validity rules.
[[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%;">
A case in point is a cover artist notified that his post is preventing the validity of the anthology and immediately removing the offending language. Of course, he added a hashtag "Oh no not dw fanart again", where he generally keeps fan art of TARDISes, the Thirteenth Doctor, etc. But I am sure that he will be quick to remove that too, after being notified of the lapse.
<span style="font-size:1.2em">'''''The mechanics of administration'''''</span>
 
I congratulate you on pioneering the '''Credits for Edits''' scheme, a symbiotic relationship between editors here on the wiki and small-time publishers, whereby active defenders of the publisher are awarded with authorship and, who knows, maybe even editorship. As you explain your involvement with writing the Faction Paradox,
{{quote|when I was lucky enough to be asked to write for [the Faction Paradox]|NateBumber on being invited to contribute|[https://obversebooks.co.uk/the-creators/]}}
Assuming this was not similar to Russell T Davies inviting J. K. Rowling, to be ''asked'' to contribute... You are very clear in the interview that you had no writing credentials ("My main creative outlet is school! I do also have plenty of fiction and nonfiction writing projects in progress"). The only plausible explanation for the preferential treatment is that it was a reward for your FP advocacy here on the wiki. (Which, before you accuse me again, is not illegal or against the wiki rules.) Seeing your success, it appears that others are following in your stead. (I personally think that Borisashton has definitely earned at least one story.) This scheme benefits both editors and publishers. The only loser is the credibility and reputation of the wiki, if it tilts too much in favour of publishers represented by editors. But clearly this is what the community wants.
 
Another danger, which I keep returning to, is hypocrisy. During the last period of unpleasant inclusion debates, three years ago, multiple writers professed how closely related FP was to DW (see [[Thread:206566]]), how it was ''definitely'' the same universe. Funny how after CzechOut proposed a compromise, in the name of peace, suddenly FP authors started sounding differently
{{quote|The Faction Paradox universe is all about breaking the familiar and the loved, the things we’re nostalgic over. '''We can argue and debate all day about how connected/disconnected FP should be/shouldn’t be from Doctor Who'''...|Another wiki editor/FP author on FP vs. DW|[[https://obversebooks.co.uk/the-creators/]]}}
 
So it is a different universe now, with the explicit purpose of breaking things we love, like ''Doctor Who''. You might say, this is just a speculation on my part. Alas, the next phrase is:
{{quote|'''''FP was always about breaking Doctor Who'''''.|Another wiki editor/FP author on FP vs. DW|[[https://obversebooks.co.uk/the-creators/]]}}
 
You might say that ''breaking'' here was meant in some benign, possibly metaphorical way. It is explained:
{{quote|Taking the comfy aspects and tropes and characters and just destroying them. Running them through meat grinders, tortuous paths through shadowed valleys.|Another wiki editor/FP author on FP vs. DW|[[https://obversebooks.co.uk/the-creators/]]}}
 
While people like me, who do not want our beloved franchise destroyed and run through a meat grinder,---we are called small people for not wanting it.


By the way, was this why you decided to co-opt Steven Moffat's character [[Amy Pond (The Girl Who Waited)]] in your own story? To destroy and run through a meat grinder? Or simply to subvert? I mean you called her [[Wade (A Farewell to Arms)]] and I'm sure no copyright infringement has occurred. And you did not even need to edit her in. There are always eager editors caring more about your authorial intent than that of Steven Moffat or [[Tom MacRae]]. If an FP writer wishes to subvert/destroy/grind a character from new ''Doctor Who'', this wiki sure seems open for business.
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}}'''.


But I would like to return to good faith and wiki rules. You recently created a page [[The Rise and Fall of Señor 105 (novel)]], supplying it with the note "The first five chapters of the novella are comprised of Blair Bidmead's 2012 novella ''By the Time I Get to Venus, or, Recuerda'', which was the third release in the ''Señor 105'' series." Now, as a true connoisseur and practically a PR representative of [[Obverse Books]], as well as one of the participants of that old debate, you must have been aware that the community deemed this invalid in [[Thread:117545]], based on an explicit statement by the author regarding this very 2012 novella. So might I ask why, against the existing community decision and explicit author's wishes, why did you create a page for this story as valid, without a community discussion? Must I continue assuming that this policy violation is not in any way influenced by your connections to Obverse Books? And would you show good faith by putting an invalid tag on the page, cleaning it up from in-universe pages and, if there is some new information not taken into account in the old debate, starting an inclusion debate?  
But for now, you probably just want to watch some video, right?  


Note that both Arcbeatle stories and this novel were basically smuggled onto the wiki bypassing inclusion debates. Are there more of these?
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:


Secondly, there is one Faction Paradox creation whose validity directly contradicts our rules.
<div style="text-align:center">[https://www.fandom.com/video/Ylr7uqmq/admin-rights-tools-roles-webinar <nowiki>[click here]</nowiki>]</div>
{{quote|some reference works — will present "biographical" or "historical" information about characters and situations in the DWU in a non-narrative style. Maybe this will be information on the back of playing card or a an article that's a kind of "pseudo-history". None of this is allowed.|Fictional information presented non-narratively|T:VS#What doesn't count}}
I am talking, of course, of [[The Book of the War (novel)]]. [[Lawrence Miles]]' description of it perfectly fits the description above invalidating it (the following quotes are from Miles' [http://web.archive.org/web/20080509161052/http://www.gallifreyone.com/interview.php?id=miles interview]):


{{quote|
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.
*it's not exactly a "collection". It's more a sort of guidebook
[[File:Managing your wiki - review of tools & special pages|center|300px]]
*even if you record it as a straightforward history rather than as a novel
*it's an encyclopaedia to the War Era universe
*It's got a structure rather than a plot, the way history's got a structure or a Bible's got a structure.
*it's fake-history rather than prose}}


As the person assigned to be responsible for FP three years ago, would you show good faith by putting an invalid tag on ''The Book of the War'', which is in clear violation of our validity rules, cleaning it up from in-universe pages and, if you think our validity rules should be changed, starting an inclusion debate? Because there is no inclusion debate that validated specifically ''The Book of War''. Its appearance on the wiki, once again, was in circumvention of our rules.


Since you always care so much about the wiki rules, including the validity rules, I'm sure you would show good faith and prove your own impartiality with respect to both [[The Rise and Fall of Señor 105 (novel)]] and [[The Book of the War (novel)]]. Because choosing otherwise would be tantamount to showing that you prefer to side with a publisher rather than with our wiki rules. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:21, January 19, 2020 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:1.2em">'''''The art of administration'''''</span>


== Early life response ==
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.
Hey, man. I just wanted to start my apologising by how I reacted to you edit. I don't know what came over me, but I just saw red and tried to revert it. I guess I was acting out because some pages I made got deleted with no reason given, aside from one editor asking what their purpose was, and I was probably taking some out that pent up anger out on a page I didn't see the point of. That was no way for me to behave, and I apologies for it. There's just been so much negativity on the wiki lately. Unregistereds labeling the Thirteenth Doctor as invalid, users lashing out at each other in talk pages about the Master's page, and an actual neo-Nazi spreading their hate on their talk page. It's just getting a bit much to take it, and I think my judgment got effected by it.  


Anyway to get to the point, while I still disagree with a separate page just for the Doctor early life, I don't see the point of opposing it if it what the majority wants, so I'll abide by that, and I look forward to helping to work towards getting the stub tag removed by updating it the best I can, but I might not know what I'm doing most the time, but I'll try my best to be an asset.[[User:BananaClownMan|BananaClownMan]] [[User talk:BananaClownMan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:57, February 24, 2020 (UTC)
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]]


== 'A Lady Doctor?' ==
Hi there. Apologies for the weird question, but on July 21, 2018 at 15:50, you edited the 'Thirteenth Doctor' page, referring to the Iris Wildthyme short story 'A Lady Doctor?'. I cannot find reference to this story anywhere else on the internet? Are you able to confirm that this story exists? Many thanks. {{unsigned|Zzzzzaappp}}


:Thank you for this link - Been searching everywhere for it! All the best. [[User:Zzzzzaappp|Zzzzzaappp]] [[User talk:Zzzzzaappp|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:36, March 13, 2020 (UTC)
<span style="font-size:1.2em">'''''What now?'''''</span>


== Article Expansion ==
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}}'''.
Hi N8, you seem like a person who knows a lot about obscure ''Doctor Who'' spinoffs. Is there any LGBTQ+ characters from ''Faction Paradox'' or another series connected to the Whoniverse? Trying to boast the pages a little bit. [[User:Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived|Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived]] [[User talk:Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:28, March 28, 2020 (UTC)


== Merge proposals ==
[[File:Site-logo.png|250px|center]]
hi i saw you put merge signs in men with the bent nose and the doctor (tomorrow windows) we talk about that long ago with admnins fatal death and death comes to time not considered valid by this wiki thanks my friend {{unsigned|Doctor other}}
</div></div>


no problem my friend thanks
== 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)

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"