User talk:CzechOut

	Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27

Whatever happened to DiSoRiEnTeD1?

Hello!

I know you have bigger fish to fry at present, and I am also sorry to begin your new talk page on such a glum note, but — User:Najawin has just alerted me, on a talk page, to your recent blocking of User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 for sockpuppetry.

DiSoRiEnTeD1 and I agreed on few things, and a mere glance at his talk page will show that he was sometimes unruly or even disruptive. Nevertheless, I never had cause to ascribe any malice to him until today; he merely came across as rash and inexperienced. DiSoRiEnTeD1 had, a little while ago, come to believe there was some sort of admin conspiracy against hims, and User:OncomingStorm12th, User:SOTO and myself had agreed that it was best to give him strong warnings, but not block him, so as to prove him wrong on this point and show him we were not some cabal itching for an excuse to ban him.

He had scarcely shown his face (well, his default user avatar) since then, however. And if he has now left us so definitively… well, I think I and several other users (from OS12th to his frequent talk-page sparring partner User:Najawin) may be owed some closure on the subject of DiSoRiEnTeD1. Najawin, for example, had scruples on the talk page I mentioned earlier, because, for all that he often went overboard in defense of it, DiSoRiEnTeD1 was the main and most steadfast supports of positions opposite to Najawin's (or to mine) in many discussions. Which puts us all in the somewhat awkward position of "winning" by default, without the opposition getting to have a say at the conclusion.

So, after all that, and because your blocking-summary was rather vague (and you did not, or at least have not yet, posted a more fully written-out rationale on his talk page)… my question is just — what happened? What precisely did he do? When? Where?

To be clear, I am not asking for any kind of reduction to his ban, or questioning your decision; if he did indeed break T:SOCK, there is nothing more to be said on the matter in terms of his actual punishment. My questions are just that — curiosity. And perhaps a hint of sadness that it came to this, after all the tiresome drama and the accusations and the reassurances. DiSoRiEnTeD1, at least until this sockpuppetry business, was never a troll, and is owed, perhaps, a little respect as he goes.

…But as I led with, all these rather nebulous feelings of mine are nothing urgent, and I know you have other things on your plate. Get to this when it's convenient for you, and don't hurry yourself on my account! The UCP, home page and so on are clearly more pressing uses of your limited time. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls

Hello. I know you've been busy but this looks possibly important so I wanted to let you know. After seeing Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, I created the page with an explanation as to what it was, as there was some confusion. When the edit completed a big message appeared about "change propagation" and the "job queue". I don't know enough about the code of MediaWiki to know what this really means, or if it will affect anything, but seeing as it appears important and you control the technical aspects of the wiki, I thought you should know. I hope it didn't mess up anything... Chubby Potato ☎ 09:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Something odd

I have been noticing a recent surge of either multiple IP users or one user with a fluctuating IP creating some truly bizarre spam pages consisting of pure nonsense and usually being horribly garbled copies of existing valid maintenance pages. Also exhibiting some similar behaviour and overlap of interests to some earlier vandals coming over here from some truly strange wiki apparently about old people of all things to insert ageist remarks into pages about Peter Capaldi and sexist one into pages about Jodie Whittaker. Yeah, I don't know either. NightmareofEden ☎ 12:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Master discussion

Good to know. I did just make another post on the matter just before I received your message, so feel free to delete that. I would like to ask you politely to unlock the initial discussion though, as you did ask for ideas. Regards,

Epsilon📯 📂

21:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Discussions use

Right right, I see!

Well, honestly — I agree with you, on the usefulness of not holding policy-making threads in Discussions! It's just that your own quite detailed post seemed to me like a Forum post, and so I thought you had changed your mind about this. I have no particular wish that we do this now, so long as it is agreed that we do it later; I genuinely thought you were the one who wanted it handled in Discussions, there.

But thanks for the explanation, all the same! Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: DWM

Just saw your message at User talk:LegoK9: …what's going on, here? Since when do copyright-holders ring us up and ask us not to include an image on the Wiki? What about fair use and all that? So long as we are reproducing the images for a documentary purpose, there isn't supposed to be much they can say — is there?

To be clear I assume you have a good reason, but I'm wondering about what kind of a weird precedent this is setting, and how it should be applied in future. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes — but here I can't see how we could possibly be talking about questions of privacy. These are not candid images of private individuals, found in a derelict corner of the web and unfairly signal-booted. These are images that are even now widely reproduced in Doctor Who Magazine. DWM is widely sold among Who fans — and more widely read, perhaps, than our own Wiki.

Furthermore they are not images of a real person, but publicity shots of the Doctor. If DWM asked us not to reproduce a particular publicity shot of Peter Capaldi as the Twelfth Doctor, would we be forced to delete it to "protect Capaldi's privacy"? Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm. I suppose I see what you mean — and I certainly see the sense in maintaining good relations with DWM. I do have to question the wisdom of such a hard rule as "wishes of the copyright holder always trump fair use": what if Big Finish came out and asked us not to host any images of their covers at all, or something of the kind? I could see a publisher of DWU fiction making that kind of pronouncement, albeit not necessarily the Beeb themselves. I can't imagine we could comply with that kind of blanket ban, and still remain a halfway useful Wiki. If they threaten legal action that is another thing, but a mere wish should not paralyse a whole fandom so.

I am speaking in general terms, though. The point is well-taken that in this case we have other publicity shots of that Doctor, from that year, in that outfit. It is not at all essential that we retain this particular one on the Wiki, so we might as well keep DWM happy.

(For the record I have seen a comparable case on another Wiki on which I am an admin; but that case involved a picture of a real person, not a 50-year-old publicity shot of a character; and furthermore it was not a picture readily available to the whole of the fandom in a magazine.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Invite

Incidentally, this is unrelated to the above matter, but I am still waiting on you for that Slack invite, unless you already sent it and my spam folder ate it up. (If you've misplaced my email address, it's still one of my most recent messages to you on Discord.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Millennia's blue hair

I already made a forum post about this, but maybe this is better. Where did the information on Millennia's blue hair come from? It's been bugging many of us in the Deca fandom for quite some time. I see the edit on that was made in August of 2011, while the page itself was made in 2009. Many people have read through Divided Loyalties, even going as far as to specifically search for "blue hair," and have turned up empty. Was this just some fan thing that everyone agreed upon? Thank you! ~@starryeyedgazer June 6th, 2021

Manarchy ban

Hello. You might not remember me but my account is called Manarchy. I'm currently using a VPN to talk to you and i wanted to talk about my ban. It's been a couple of years since i even visited this wikia and I realised that I had grown more mature as the years went by. If it is possible, is there any way you could unban my account? I apologise for my actions as a young teenager and promise that I will be more mature on this site. If it is impossible, then i'm just glad to wrap things up with this wikia.

Manarchy 01:29 July 7, 2021 (UTC)

(Heads'up, I've informed Manarchy of the inappropriateness of their VPN shenanigans. I'll leave making a judgment on the request itself to you, though.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Overall Century layout + Century timeline template fix

Hi, I'm sort of a lurker on this wiki, though I do currently own Eminem Wiki, so I have used the Wikitext language before, though I am certain there's a few things I'd need to learn. I've attempted to understand (and fix, though I haven't made any changes permanent) through the creation and usage of the template Template:TimelineRevised and (originally) Template:Order of Centuries (which should be deleted), with no success. I noticed that (ex. 1st century) the listed centuries are duplicated in the list (as the categories themselves as well as the pages for the individual centuries are listed).
- Kris tha 6'7" ☎ 23:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Some of your recent changes and proposals

Hi, thanks for your detailed breakdown. There are a few things that I would like to rebut, protest and clarify. The stuff in Fandomdesktop.css was only ever intended to be temporary. It was just a collection of fixes to apply over the top of existing CSS. I had plans to write some better, more permanent CSS but this was impractical due to the fact that I can't edit these CSS pages and so had to use my off-wiki contact with Scrooge MacDuck and OncomingStorm12th to get the CSS implemented. Therefore, I deemed the method I used to be most ideal as it's better to have something that works, even if it's not perfect, then nothing at all.

The background was not added by me but rather SOTO. I believe the reason it was done through CSS was because it was more complex then a single image but I'm not entirely sure.

The issue with screenreaders is to do with collapsibles and I'm sorry to admit that I rolled out a set of templates into the theory namespace a few days ago. I'm not sure how you may want to proceed here.

My understanding of SMW was that, if a wiki has it enabled, it is fine for that wiki to use it. Certainly, I've spoken a fair bit with users on the Fandom Discord server about it and I was never told not to use it. While I do prefer Cargo, SMW is very useful and I feel it should be used to it's fullest potential. Moreover, it's already used heavily in templates such as {{wales crew}} and {{Speedy rename}} so surely a few more wouldn't hurt. Also, the template being developed in that sandbox was not to automate prefixes but rather to add more detail to citations. This would be a massive burden to have to type manually.

Tooltips was a route I was considering a long time ago but I haven't been for a while now.

I hope that you are now feeling better on the medical front. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 07:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Something else that I've just remembered about my use of Fandomdesktop.css is that I wrote a lot of it when Oasis was still the primary skin and I didn't want anything I was writing for FandomDesktop to have side effects on Oasis. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 07:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Anonnotice error

Hello, I'm glad you're back and I hope you're feeling better now. I know you're still fixing up the tech and visual stuff, but I just wanted to let you know that MediaWiki:Anonnotice was oddly displaying a portion of an infobox which I determined to be from Popidius Celsinus. I hadn't even been on that page. It only happens sometimes but it's very strange. Chubby Potato ☎ 05:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Temporary forums

Hey, hope you've been alright with the (gestures around toward the abstract) everything lately. This is actually a message from multiple admin (myself, user:OncomingStorm12th and user:Scrooge MacDuck), though it is me writing this. (Don't worry too much about it.)

So while you're been busy working on the new forums for the UCP, with the return to the actual Forum namespace no doubt around the corner, a number of users have suggested we set up temporary forums, so we can still get the essential discussions out of the way, in the meantime. We think this is a good idea. We've actually been developing a discussion at Tardis talk:Temporary forums, where others have chimed in (including user:Tangerineduel, who also thinks it's a good idea).

Creatures who hold Time in this universe together broken. Time is beginning to run wild. Could really harm the Tardis. So I made a short-term repair.

Basically, six slots would be open for new discussions (we actually have a list of priorities going). In the spirit of Doctor Who: Flux, rather like the Mouri in the Temple of Atropos, all forum discussion passes through these spaces (beyond the scope of talk pages). When one closes, its spot will be opened for another to take its place.

[[Tardis:Temporary forums]] would be the Hub, with

1. Links to these six spaces;

2: A list of future discussions ("Next Up", agreed to on the talk page);

3. An archive section (with table format, showing resolves/unresolved, and a quick summary of the closing remarks).

All in one place. This will help with moving things over to the Actual Forums. And there will be a strict time limit on these discussions: three weeks until closing time. When this time is up, if a discussion has not reached a conclusion, it'll be closed as unresolved (marked yellow in the table), and taken to the bottom of the list, to be revived later.

This is all to make sure we get the maximum gain (actual resolution) out of a small number of discussions at any one time (to ease the load, creating a smoother transition, with only a small number of pages to move over into the New Forums, later on).

The thing is, we just wanted to make sure you weren't just about to hit that big friendly button before proceeding. No point in all this, after all, if there won't be time enough for round one before the next stage of forum evolution's upon us again. We were thinking about opening the temporary forums on the Sunday after next, around Doctor Who time That'd be Sunday Jan 23rd, 19:30 UTC. Unless you think you'll have the Newest Forums up and running by then?

Happy New Year, by the way!
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 21:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)