User talk:Najawin

	Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4

Re: TLDR

Ah, thank you. Will do so in a minute.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

19:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

RE:Sandbox

Thanks very much! Aquanafrahudy 📢 18:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: threads

Aye, that's next on my docket. Give me a minute, though: nine in an afternoon, phew! And I still have a reply on that ol'R4BP thread cooking… Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: I dunno about you

Just left a response on Forum:10 Years on, Amnesty Once More. Thanks for telling me about it. Sorry I haven't added anything to Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives, that thread became, very quickly, overwhelming to me considering its length.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Sections

Yeah, I think so. It's just too much unbroken in-universe gab. You'd need subsection titles, pull-quotes, images — but I also think parenthetical citations are the wrong fit for this, and we should discuss the flow of episodes and season-breaks and EU media in-text. "Though largely standalone, Christmas special provided some emotional resolution for Amy and Rory, while teasing the next arc-plot on a thematic level…" sorts of things. Or so I suspect. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Image choices look workable. I would definitely alternate between right- and left-justified images, though. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Would be exceedingly interested to hear your thoughts over at Forum:Roland Rat: The Series, if you have the time and the inclination. No worries if not, though, or if you have no real thoughts on the matter. :) - Aquanafrahudy 📢 09:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. The whole first series is available on Youtube, if you're interested. Aquanafrahudy 📢 19:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Endless

What's the difference with endless and infinite? User:Sum41Champ

Re: Thread closures

Hi, I'm a little busy at the moment but I should be able to have a look at these either today or tomorrow. Sorry about the massive backlog of threads that need closing. Bongo50 ☎ 07:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sory but I've not had time to close either thread yet. I have done a reread of Forum:10 Years on, Amnesty Once More, though, and am starting to formulate some closing thoughts. Hopefully, I'll be able to get that one closed tomorrow with Forum:(SPOILER: The start of RtD2) Quickstart Guides following soon after. Bongo50 ☎ 18:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. I'm discussing some potential complications of Forum:10 Years on, Amnesty Once More with Scrooge and I'm writing the closing post to Forum:(SPOILER: The start of RtD2) Quickstart Guides right now. Bongo50 ☎ 20:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. I still need to talk things through with Scrooge but I think we've both been quite busy. There doesn't seem to be any kind of way to automate the unblocking process so, unless we feel we can devote the time to perform the amnesty, we won't be able to close it. Bongo50 ☎ 11:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The Klade

I have opened up a talk page to discuss the possible kalde mention on that page if you would like to take part.Anastasia Cousins ☎ 21:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: R4BP

It's been the plan for some time for User:Bongolium500 to write a semi-closure, and then officially set the bounds for a Part Two thread to properly discuss where we go from here. But I did ask him to hold off until I got the chance for one last riposte, which I do have half-written — my thoughts on Web Theory no longer reflect what's up in the thread (though lest you cry victory it goes without saying that I still don't agree with you, either). I've just been, as I said, very busy. After tonight, I should hopefully be past one of the most time-consuming responsibilities of those last two months — I'd tell you what it is, but, uh, T:SPOIL. [eyes emoji] So at a wildly optimistic guess expect a response this week-end, and more realistically some time in the coming week… after which it's up to you whether you'll want to reply to me again (I don't want to forcibly have the "last word" or anything), or to leave it to Bongo to close and reboot. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

TCoRR plot summary

Just want to thank you in advance for fleshing out the plot summary for The Church on Ruby Road.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

02:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: editoralizng

Which part of the edit was editorializing? It carries none of my personal opinions, is the same information as the previous version just written less clunky. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thisyeah (talk • contribs) .

Taking you up on an old offer

A while ago you offered to explain to me how to perform some edits on this wiki. At the time I turned down the request however I would now like to take you up on it. I have an image I would like to upload however I struggle to understand the image policy and I do not know how to practically add an image at all. Can you explain this to me please. I would like it explained if possible as someone who know absolutely nothing about beyond computers beyond knowing how to type and sign thingsAnastasia Cousins ☎ 11:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your help the image has been uploaded is this okay?

Red Dalek Leader and two Subordinates

Re: QuickAnswers

Yes, that's definitely been on both Bongo's radar and mine. Worrying indeed, but we (the Wiki) have weathered worse storms, and we (Bongo and I) are pondering solutons. A Forum thread will of course be opportune once it rolls out…

I do wish there were some means — email, even?… — of keeping you abreast of things in a more "light-hearted" manner than Forum discussions or even talk page messages, which generally have a pointed and particular purpose… You would not need to worry about where our heads have been at, and I could speak at greater lengths about floated ideas without thereby committing to them (albeit as proposals), as an admin kind of does in a public discussion. Have you given any further thought to such avenues? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Argh. I know you're trying to hint at something but alas it's going over my head. A Najawin can be found in the comments…?… But so what? YouTube doesn't have a private-messages setting, does it?…

Asking to be spared, as it were, is an obvious thought, yes. Again, a thought whose implications I wish we could discuss somewhere else. In my experience, once one possess one Google account/email, I don't think a phone number is required to create an alt. account with no public link to the first, which comes with its own email; can't you attempt that?

(Besides, my gmail address is no great secret — it's the obvious aristide.twain thing — so if you're willing to trust that I would not disclose whatever email address you emailed me from to anyone else, you could email me first. It is obviously not a step I can ask you to take in any way that could possibly come across as pressuring you; just laying it out. I do at least hope that you would trust me that much by now, as far as not disclosing it further goes, such that it would be down to whether you're alright with me specifically having that email. But, again, totally fine if you're not, wouldn't take it personally) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, best wishes with that, but is all rather time-sensitive… Have you considered registering an account on the Faction Paradox Forum? Could talk there in Forum-style DMs. No phone numbers or real names or any such thing necessary. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry to hear that… Gah, but this is tricky business. I do want to note that I'd picked the FP Forum precisely because it's so low-activity that it scarcely feels like "social media" — but I do see how the subject matter might worry you, and of course we may hope, the present business aside, that it might get livelier in the foreseeable future… Well, how about this — I've gone and made a Forum. There's nothing in it and there never will be. If you make an account there, we could DM there. That could work? Maybe? There are things I'd like to bounce off you! Wiki-related and not, even.

To get back to the matter at hand, the thing is that my current feeling — as far as I'll get into on here — is that as presented this would be such a trainwreck on Tardis as to be a non-starter, and I have to believe Fandom would roll it back within a week once this became apparent. I don't know that I'd wholly trust them to take concerns seriously if e.g. answers on The Doctor fail to abide by T:NPOV or the like; but auto-generating at least three answers based on every one-sentence page, every real-world author page that's just a list of credits, etc.… that would doubtless clutter their servers with aimless gibberish to a degree that they cannot possibly think is in their best interests. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, here goes nothing…. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Phooey. Fixed now. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: Quick Answers

Yes, I've been following it, and I don't love it. The review period they're introducing is a positive change in the right direction, and I do believe that something like this could be beneficial, but I am distrustful of the use of AI and I don't like that every page will have to have at least 3 answers. There is no point to, say, cheeseburger having a Quick Answers module. We currently have 108,069 pages on this wiki. That's 324,207 individual answers to have to review and potentially edit. Lets asssume it takes 10 second to review an answer (which I'm pretty confident in saying is an underestimate). That's 3,242,070 seconds, or over 37 days, of just reviewing and editing Quick Answers, and that's just for the pages we already have: this number will continue to increase without bound as the wiki grows. That's time I'd much rather spend working on actual articles. The AI-generated answers are also probably going to violate T:NPOV and probably T:IU a ton, meaning we'll either have to carve out an exception (sacrificing consistency in our style), or edit most of the answers (making 10 seconds a definite underestimate). Bongo50 ☎ 17:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

QuickAnswers query

Hey! I saw you had some concerns re QuickAnswers and Tardis and I just wanted to address these, and if you had any questions etc.

In terms of your concern of questions appearing on every page, as the blog states, we're working with wikis to work out what a feasible amount looks like. Larger wikis would have more candidates for QAs as their content is often more built out, but the idea isn't to overwhelm you all. We're working with wikis on this, hence the extensive testing.

Re the quality of the questions and answers, you say they're "fundamentally broken". To begin with, sure, there were a lot of issues and I don't think anyone is disputing that. But since then, the process for generating QAs has been overhauled and tested and I'd hold fire on assuming they're broken until you view the final product. I'm around on Tardis if you have any issues with QAs on rollout, and you know my talk page and Discord are always open of course.

Happy to take any questions/concerns on this! --Spongebob456 ^talk <staff/> 10:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I know you've had long conversations with Lostris on this so I won't go over the same ground other than to say you have valid concerns for sure. Specifically for Tardis, I get you're saying as Doctor Who has complex lore. The same applies to wikis like Wookieepedia too with the Canon/Legends timeline, not to mention the multiverses in comic books (and ever increasingly in films but I digress!). Staff are aware of this and we need to be patient to see what the quality of the QAs will be.

If they aren't any good, QAs on select pages are easily editable or deleted and we can work out a plan with the community and Fandom staff. An example of this is on the 4 testing communities we rolled QAs out to, they pushed back on the number they had to review. The result was Fandom increased vetting time to a month and halved the number of QAs to review to help with community concerns. You raised an issue re user rights and how feasible it is for admins to cover all the questions too - hopefully this answers that we will work out a plan for this.

I will keep the wiki updated on QA developments and have spoken to the admins about setting a forum thread to post these updates which I will make when the next updates come in. Please do keep keep queries coming in the meantime on my talk page though! --Spongebob456 ^talk <staff/> 12:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Text Cursor

I did have that same, or at least a very similar, issue a few years ago. Right pain. But unfortunately I don't know how to fix it, as IIRC Fandom eventually patched it themselves.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Communication

Ahoy — I thought I should let you know that for reasons which elude me, Twitch is now refusing to let me send you any more text messages unless I confirm a phone number, even though I can still see yours. (In answer to the last, OS12th has now joined us, though he does not expect to be very active in the immediate future. Revan will certainly not resume sustained activity, but still intends to try and migrate for the principle of the thing.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Marked as Bot

Hi Najawin, I saw that you put a bot marker on my page, but I think I've been mislabelled as I'm not a bot and just a guy making Wanted Categories. Hope this can be reversed soon :) Gingerfool ☎ 08:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Wrongly Marked as Bot

I think it's also because I setup an automated filter to block page creations (except for trusted users and sysops) and this caught their edits. However, the spam attack seemed to have stopped before I got this setup so I've disabled it. Bongo50 ☎ 08:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Spam

I've deleted all of their pages and blocked all of the suspicious accounts. I'm going to try and set up some filters to catch and prevent these edits. Bongo50 ☎ 09:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that. I don't think the edits have enough defining features to catch them with a filter. Bongo50 ☎ 09:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Just to help

Good grief that thread was a pain to follow, but thanks for pointing me to it. I've read T:HOMEWORLD like a dozen times and still for some reason didn't make that link as I've been ruminating on this, 'tis a big help, ta - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 23:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Also very useful, thanks! - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 01:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding T:BOUND

Heya, so on Talk:The World's End you said we shouldn't make the edit because the forum thread is ongoing, "per T:BOUND". Sorry if I'm missing something here, but why would editing something to be more in line with current policy while that policy is being discussed be against T:BOUND? "... while a discussion is ongoing about how to change a particular rule, you are bound by the rule as it currently exists" suggests the opposite to me. Cheers, - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 20:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm a bit confused here. That section, and the thread that enshrined it, if I understand correctly, is referring to current practice also being policy, even if it isn't written down. Are you implying that "leaving pages alone insofar as policy is concerned while said policy is being discussed for change" is current practice? If that's the case, cool (though in that case I might bring that to the Forums to be actually written down, because that precedent in itself is confusing with the summary I cited). If not, could I bother you to elaborate? Thanks for the help - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 22:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, really, that's been a great help - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Space Babies

You've got me curious now, what are your thoughts on Space Babies?

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

23:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Pardon my jumping in — I didn't much care for the episode either, but I confess myself baffled as to how one could possibly interpret it as anti-abortion. The pro-choice parable seemed, if anything, ham-fisted (though intentionally so, I'm sure, that's just how Davies rolls, so that's not necessarily a criticism). "There's a law against switching off baby-making machines, but no structure to support the 'surplus' babies"… it seems pretty clear-cut? The law is clearly singled out as stupid in itself, so I don't think there's much of a reading to be had whereby the law is good but the government is culpable for not having the safety net afterwards. It's very much pitched as "you people passed that self-evidently stupid law, and then you don't even do anything to mitigate the damage? for shame". I've thought about it from several angles and I really just don't see what reading you and your friends seem to be onto. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what "save the Bogeyman same as the others" has to do with it. I guess the basic "every life is valuable" can be read uncharitably, but that still seems strained to me; it's not as though the Doctor asserts that the machine should be kept on, after all. It's just the difference between being pro-choice and being pro-A Modest Proposal. Maybe slightly clumsy but, with due respect to your friends, this seems tenuous enough relative to the earlier, much more explicit metaphor that I would certainly not describe it as worse than the ever-discourse-stirring Kill the Moon. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I did have the same take-away as Scrooge here did, but I almost get the impression that it's pro-choice, but, if in the situation where that choice is denied, then the children should be cared for. I do feel it likely wasn’t an intended theme of the episode though, it didn't feel like something RTD consciously wanted to write the story around.

It was, otherwise, certainly purile but it'd be amiss for me to say that I didn’t love the performances of Gatwa and Gibson and how they really bounced off the environment. Ruby's disgust was downright palpable.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

01:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I rather thought the idea was that the Bogeyman wasn't a villain at all — just an innocent six-year-old being who just so happened to have been designed to look instinctively scary. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Mh?

Did I what to whom now? I'm quite lost. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 03:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes! Well, I can't say the rewatch of DCtT which prompted this round of edits had nothing to do with the stream… But it's not as though the Houses aren't always gnawing at my brain in my natural state, and I have other reasons besides. I wasn't consciously thinking of sticking that page on the next Wheel or anything. Although, now you come to mention it… --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 03:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Re:not on Twitter

(Are you and LegoK9 the same person?) Anyway, I'm aware of Nitter, but I thought they closed down? WaltK ☎ 21:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Re. FP forums

It happens that I have moderator status on the FP forums, so I've attempted to do a cleanup. I am hoping — fingers crossed — I didn't muck anything up, as that's the first time I've deleted posts and banned a user...

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

02:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: Boulevard

Unfortunately not! I've fallen off a bit with the more recent FP releases. TheChampionOfTime ☎ 14:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: Signature Template

Hi Najawin, you mentioned making my Signature a template so that it doesn't take up loads of space, but it doesn't seem to work how ones like Epsilon's do, even though there doesn't seem to be any differences between the signature code, it still transfers the whole mediawiki code of mine into the page when signed. Is there anything I can change in the preferences to change this? I've tried linking to the User:Gingerfool/Sig page using {{}}, and it automatically adds SUSBT: to it, but is there anything else I can try? -Gingerfool Talk Page 14:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Quantum

You really will be much happier once you accept that the Observer Effect and the observer effect are different things altogether… --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Muppets: creatures? puppets?

Actually, my understanding is that, in most accounts, "the Muppets" is in fact simply the name of Kermit's acting troupe, and they are, diegetically, genuine talking animals. (Or talking humans in some cases.) Of course, various media have shown them displaying awareness that they are puppets to one extent or another, but that's more of a fourth-wall joke (e.g. Kermit remarking that he isn't sure who this Jim Henson fellow is, "but I've heard that he's got his hand in a lot of things around here. Not sure what that means"). The idea of 'Muppets' as living beings of felt and cardboard, knowingly coexisting with flesh-and-blood humans, in the mould of Roger Rabbit's ink-and-paint 'Toons', is more of an online meme/fandom confabulation. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: Cover art sandbox

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure which part of the discussion you're pointing to specifically - the thing about using cite source? (possibly in relation to the idea of cover art being cited on the same page as the publication?)_ Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 22:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right, I'll edit it to make it a tad clearer, wouldn't want to leave anyone confused. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 23:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)