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)