User talk:Danniesen

	Archives: #1

Enthusiasm

There is sometimes a fine line between enthusiastic editing and retaliatory action when things do not fall in the way seen by some editors. I hope that a single day block will allow the user in question to cool down on the undo / edit spree and it will not necessitate further action. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:21, February 9, 2020 (UTC)

IP user(s)

Hey, I see you contacted User:Tangerineduel about an IP user who kept engaging on an edit war over the series 12 page, and since Tangerineduel wasn't editing around that time, I decided to take action instead and block the IP.

Little advice though (and truly, this is just an advice): don't engage with the vandal in a discussion that has proved to lead nowhere in the past. I realize, through your edit history, that you have an affection towards "series pages", and I wholeheartedly understand the frustration of an edit war happening in a page we care about. However, this IP user has repeatedly demonstrated that they're not interested in reaching compromises or common ground while editing. Again, this is just advice, but, frustrating as it is, I don't see much of a point on trying to argue with them (past undoing their edits, that is).

Usually I wouldn't even mention this, because ultimately it's your choice what you'll do with your time and how you'll respond to others' actions, but this discussion took place over an user talk page (namely, Tangerineduel's). I've known of a few editors who opted to recieve e-mail notifications whenever someone leaves a message on their talk, and engaging on a discussion with this ip user on their talk page means that Tangerineduel would (if they have this e-mail notification option turned on in their account) have recieved one truly useful email (your communication of the edit war) and then 10 further notifications which aren't.... truly helpful to anyone (nor meant for Tangerineduel, in fact). You see what I mean? So, if this, or any other ip user (or registered, for that matter) starts a discussion that seems to go nowhere over someone else's talk page, I'd strongly reinforce the suggestion of not engaging back.

Anyway, the situation is fixed. :) OncomingStorm12th (talk) 12:21, February 19, 2020 (UTC)

Again, I deeply understand how frustrating it is to have an user repeatedly undo your edits out of vandalistic natures; I've encountered them in the past too, so I sympathize with you on that.

As for your point that "keep undoing their edits [...] would result in edit-warring" is not entirely true. Tardis:Vandalism policy#What you can do about it mentions that "you can help the site recover from vandalism by undoing the editor's action." and Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing#What isn't an edit war even further clarifies that "reverting obvious vandalism." doesn't really constitute an act of (edit) war.

What may be true (if the user doing vandalism shows a particularly stubborn behavior) is that trying to remove their vandalism before they're blocked won't be much of a success due to them simply doing more vandalism. But that'd be resolved eventually as well.

All in all, good job on keeping an eye on that page and getting in touch with the admin team/keeping a cool head through the situation. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 00:22, February 20, 2020 (UTC)

Reply

I didn't create the Doctor's early life page. In fact, I was the one who was against it in the talk page. But after listening to what the true creator, User:NateBumber, had to say on the matter, and their point on the pages getting too long and seperationg being a decent compromise between those that want to keep information against those that wanted to trim, I thought they had a point and acted accordingly.BananaClownMan ☎ 13:59, February 26, 2020 (UTC)

Source

Wait, the end of the episode saying "The Doctor will return in" doesn't count as official source? lol? LetsPlayNintendoITA 23:05, March 1, 2020 (UTC)

We have to link to sources and you can't really create a link to the episode, nor can you post any spoilery images. Put another way, episodes does not count as sources for future episodes. Websites do. As you can see now, an admin has linked to a source on the official DW website containing said image revelation, and that counts. --DCLM ☎ 23:12, March 1, 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha sorry LetsPlayNintendoITA 23:15, March 1, 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Just for future reference. --DCLM ☎ 23:16, March 1, 2020 (UTC)

Timeless Child

Hi! I'm confused as to why you reverted my edit on the Timeless Child. Why didn't it belong there? MystExplorer ☎ 13:33, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

Timeless species in Doctor infoboxes

Hey there Danniesen, I noticed you added a link to Timeless Child's species in the "species" variable for the infobox on each incarnation of the Doctor. I'm wondering whether you think all the species variables should be changed to a link to The Doctor's species instead, maybe in a way similar to the current |alias = [[The Doctor's aliases#First Doctor|'''''see list''''']] paradigm? This would tie in with some other thoughts I've had about an "Infobox Incarnation" template. Let me know what you think. – N8 (☎/👁️) 14:48, March 11, 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the link to "The Doctor's species". The reason being that that particular article sums up something very vague that says (paraphrasing) "the Doctor could be various different species, we don't know for sure", whereas the "Timeless Child's species" is one specific species that cannot be debated, we just don't know very much about it other than the regenerative ability. --DCLM ☎ 15:01, March 11, 2020 (UTC)

I don't follow. The whole point of the page The Doctor's species, Danniesen, is that whether the Doctor is a member of the Timeless Child's species (or of any other given species) very much is debatable based on various conflicting sources. No two ways about it, Lungbarrow or Doctor Who and the Daleks, just to name a few, are not consistent with the Doctor having originally been of the Timeles species and then abandoned at the Boundary for a Shobogan to find. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:08, March 11, 2020 (UTC)

That's the whole point of multiple species points in "individual infoboxes". So that we can add multiple "species" points. --DCLM ☎ 15:11, March 11, 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but since we do have The Doctor's species to handle this special case where it's not (only) that the character is a hybrid of several species, but that we have a wealth of conflicting accounts, isn't it simpler and more elegant to link to that? Especially as this allows us to standardize all Doctor pages. Because I mean, can we say that The Doctor (The Cabinet of Light) is of the Timeless Child's species, per se? The precedent of "just because Missy says 'every dead human' has been turned into a Cyberman doesn't mean we put Amy Pond in Category:Individual Cybermen" suggests we can only say that incarnations of the Doctor acknowledged by The Timeless Children itself are Timeless. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:17, March 11, 2020 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I only put it on those specific TV-appearing versions of The Doctor. And I gotta ask the question, if the Doctor's species was various/variable long before The Timeless Children, why have we only created the page AFTER that episode? --DCLM ☎ 15:21, March 11, 2020 (UTC)

Because the Wiki isn't perfect and we're only human. But The Doctor's species's creation was part of an effort that's been going on for some weeks now and also included the creation of The Doctor's early life. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:24, March 11, 2020 (UTC)

Butting in here, first of all User:Danniesen you're last question is irrelevant. User:Scrooge MacDuck answered it better than I could. Second, I'm moving this discussion to the forums since it covers multiple pages and you could get more input that way. Shambala108 ☎ 15:27, March 11, 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi please carefully read Tardis:No personal attacks. The edit summary you left accusing another user of racism violates the policy of assuming good faith. Please let the admins know if you suspect vandalism or otherwise, but leave your comments out of the edit summaries thanks Shambala108 ☎ 12:58, March 16, 2020 (UTC)

Dear God. How far does "assuming good faith" stretch? Obvious racism needs to be called out. Surely "no personal attacks" is overuled by a policy of keeping the Wikia a good place. Also, calling out racism should not be considered a personal attack, especially because racism on the Wikia is definitely in no way a good faith edit. --DCLM ☎ 20:39, March 16, 2020 (UTC)

Panopticon thread on dubs

Since you created GoldenEye 007, which sparked the discussion, I daresay you'll probably have some interest in weighing in at Thread:268687. Cheers! --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:48, March 19, 2020 (UTC)

A Message From the Doctor

Hi there. I do apologize about creating the page without first seeing your discussion thread about it. However, given that pages exist such as Strax Saves the Day, which serves the same purpose as Message from the Doctor I didn't think such a discussion thread would have been held. Sabovia ^{(Message Wall) | (Contributions)} 17:58, March 25, 2020 (UTC)

Revenge of the Nestene

The prose version of the story was released on the same day as (indeed within minutes of) the "audiobook" release, so by convention, this is a prose story with a version read by Jacob Dudman. Feel free to place a {{rename}} tag and drum up a discussion at Talk:Revenge of the Nestene (short story) if you see the situation differently. In the meantime, we follow from the closest precedents.
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   21:49, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

admins

Hi you must please stop engaging with other users who are either vandalizing the wiki or engaging in personal attacks and/or edit wars. Stop leaving them messages on their talk pages or the edit summaries. Make whatever necessary change the first time, then if it continues to happen, inform an admin before you are guilty of edit warring, not after. I know you're trying to help the wiki, but you have been guilty of violating Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing multiple times, and at some point one of the admins will be forced to block you for a short time. thanks Shambala108 ☎ 22:48, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Series 13

Hey, just a quick thank you for your hard work on the series 13 page. Any new series page is obviously one of the hardest things to keep track of on this wiki, and it's nice to have someone so dedicated to keeping it patrolled and making sure everything is sourced properly. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 17:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, thank you. --Danniesen ☎ 18:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Series 13 Page Edits

Hi, I just wanted to know why you undid my recent edits on the Series 13 page. As far as I'm aware, the changes I made were completely valid, especially regarding the numerous individual Weeping Angel redlinks in the Aliens and Enemies section; I don't see how any of those pages could validly exist. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎ 22:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The "Returning foes" section doesn't need to have large walls of text, its large enough as it is. The "Aliens and enemies" section is for aliens and enemies, as it says. We cover the aliens that appear over the course of the series. While we do not need to cover every individual Angel that appears, because that would be a whole lot, we do not to cover the ones that appear more notably. --Danniesen ☎ 23:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry for not responding for weeks (been pretty busy), and if I came across as aggressive in my comment.

I understand your point about my edits to the "Returning foes" section making said section super-bloated; I'll probably edit it again, but with much smaller notes, as I feel that it could still do with some clearing up.

Regarding the individual Weeping Angels in the "Aliens and enemies" section, I'm not 100% sure what the wiki's rules are regarding pages for individuals of a species, but I still don't think that we should have loads of pages for each individual Weeping Angel from Village of the Angels, especially when they're simply referred to as "Weeping Angel 1 (Village of the Angels)", "Weeping Angel 2 (Village of the Angels)", etc. It's a bit late given that these pages now actually exist, but I still don't think any of those pages actually need to exist. The only "unique" characteristic regarding those Weeping Angels is that they're members of the Division. And we could simply put Extraction Squad in whatever category we have along the lines of "Agents of the Division" (I think we already have one but I can't remember the name, and even if we don't already have one creating said category is pretty easy). Or we could make a page titled Extraction Squad (Village of the Angels) and stick it in said category, if we don't want to assume that all Extraction Squads are part of the Division. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎ 16:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. It's completely fine. Tone is hard to read in text and therefore has to be taken with caution in every case.

As for the Weeping Angels, again, these are Weeping Angels that appear more visibly than others and therefore has reason to be there. We don't create individual pages for every Angel that has ever existed, but we do create them for those that appear to have more of a role, which these that have been created do. As for the titles, we've been doing the titles before when we have no individual names for something we need to cover, so labelling them 1, 2, 3 etc. is completely fine.

As for the name of the Extraction Squad, I do agree that there can be a seperate name for them, if another kind of Extraction Squad pops up down the line, but as of now the Weeping Angel version is the only one we know to exist, hence the name as of now can remain as it is. --Danniesen ☎ 07:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Tenses

Hi there. Just a reminder that we write articles in the past tense - I've gone and edited the Weeping Angel sketch (Village of the Angels) page accordingly. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 10:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh hey. I didn't even see that I switched to present tense while writing the page. Thanks for correcting it. --Danniesen ☎ 11:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Series 13

It would be greatly appreciated if you could help me understand why you restored Ed Hime as having definitively returned, and removed the sourced and verifiable content of <redacted per spoiler policy>. Much appreciated, happy editing! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Zanda21 (talk • contribs) .

I restored Ed Hime because as you can see in if you read the entire "Writers" section that he is placed below a text that reads something along the lines of "this is how the series was originally going to be", as it would be nice to also have that bit of information added on the page. Secondly, Den of Geek is not a valid source on the wiki as far as I'm aware. So can't be used. --Danniesen ☎ 23:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but as you can see here, your edit restored Ed Hime twice. I'm not sure why? And can I ask what makes Den of Geek unreliable? Zanda21 ☎ 00:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Admin note here: User:Zanda21 please do not post spoilers anywhere except on the series 13 page. Shambala108 ☎ 01:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Zanda21, I agree. In that case your edit on that part is fully justified and I apologize on my part. I had not seen that this had somehow been re-added somewhere along the Edit History, and didn't see it showed up twice, and therefore took it you removed said info. That's entirely on me. --Danniesen ☎ 07:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Series 14

Hi. Please have a look at T:OVER-WIKIFY to understand why I've removed the excessive number of links. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 17:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It was hardly broken, though. There were several sections between my linking of the same thing. It both helps with reading, as different colours also makes reading easier on the eyes, and it prevents having to scroll back to a specific paragraph if you wanna go to a different page. —Danniesen ☎ 06:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

BBC DVD covers

Hi, I've been gathering every BBC DVD cover image on the wiki into one of my sandboxes, in order to see where there are any missing covers or duplicates.

Pop over and have a look, and feel free to upload any of the missing covers.

User:Doc77can/sandbox12

P.S. I'm messaging several users so check the upload log first.

Doc77can ☎ 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

File size

Hi, there. I've shrunk down your recent upload because images images aren't allowed to be bigger than 100 KB. - Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 14:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Hello. Once again, you've reverted an edit of mine to 2023 specials without an explanation, so I wonder if you could explain -

1. why the first instance of BBC in a section should not be linked but a later one should, despite the rules being that the first instance should be linked;
2. why a sentence should end without a full stop, despite the fact that full stops are required at the end of sentences;
3. why a page for releases from 1970 should be linked to when the sentence refers to the entire decade and not that year.

Thanks. - Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 16:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

1. what first instance? You removed two instances of the link. If there is an instance further back, then add it instead. 2. Obviously that one has gone unnoticed, but you could easily add that without doing the other edits. 3. Because we should link wherever necessary and that is the closest we have. ——Danniesen ☎ 16:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

1. I removed the link to the BBC from the paragraph about 24 December and added one to the paragraph about 15 May. You reverted this.

3. That doesn't make any sense at all. 1970 is a list of releases from that year. It's no closer to being about the decade than if you were to link to, say, 1976. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 16:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

2023 specials

Hi, before you go on a rant about a policy you don't like (Tardis:Don't over-wikify), please keep in mind that you did absolutely violate Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing. I didn't block you for this, but if you do it again, you could very well be blocked. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 02:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Block

Hi you've been blocked for a month for violating Tardis:No personal attacks at Talk:Cwej-636984540#Conclusion. Shambala108 ☎ 16:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Since you seem to need it explained to you, here goes (from Talk:Series 14 (Doctor Who)):

"all I can say is that it would seem that User:Aw21212121 fail to understand how we operate on the wiki and refuse to be taught. This combined with the fact that they also haven’t performed any other edits (one edit total) that isn’t just arguing on this page and in this talk page, leads me to the conclusion that they’re not willing to be a productive member of the wiki and are only looking to argue logic, which in turn makes reversal of constructive edits a clear case of vandalism."

The three items I have bolded are clear violations of Tardis:No personal attacks. You are not an admin and it is not your place to decide where an editor can/can't edit. "Not willing to be productive" is just an insult; and "clear case of vandalism" is your opinion about the edits of someone who disagrees with you. As an admin I do not find these edits to be "clear case of vandalism", and believe me I've seen plenty of that in my twelve years editing here.

Now, to deal with the bigger picture than just Talk:Series 14 (Doctor Who). Over the years I have given you a lot of leeway in your behavior because of your valuable work on upcoming series pages. But my patience with you is just about used up, because you refuse to admit that your behavior/comments might have been a violation and you don't change your behavior. Let me make this loud and clear: I expect better behavior from you, a long-time editor, when dealing with others, especially new users. The wiki is better served by having a wide number and variety of editors, and you are giving the impression that either we don't want new users or we allow new users to be verbally abused. This is obviously not the impression we want to give.

And I have to state that your behavior in response to this post will make very clear to me whether or not you intend to follow the policy Tardis:No personal attacks. Shambala108 ☎ 18:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: Series 14 (Doctor Who) editor

Agreed. I've given them a 1 day partial block on editing Series 14 (Doctor Who) which I will escalate as needed. Bongo50 ☎ 12:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about not getting back to you. I see that Scrooge has given a block. Bongo50 ☎ 16:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've not really been busy, just very tired and burnt out. I needed a few days away from editing to rest. Bongo50 ☎ 17:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Image uploads

Hey there, I just wanted to point out that a number of the images you've uploaded from the Doom's Day comic violate one of our rules concerning how to crop comic panels. Many of your images include bits and pieces of word balloons. The policy is that either all of a word balloon be in the image or not at all. WaltK ☎ 20:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Moving pages

If you move pages can you be a bit more cautious on correcting all the links that you are moving? Your recent (unnecessary) move of the River Song audio images has made them no longer appear on their respective pages. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 18:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

These are not "textless covers", they are just covers as to my knowledge there are no versions of these specific covers with text on them. Why would they not be used in the infobox as they have been specifically created and tailored to promote that particular story? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 18:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I hadn't seen the text versions. Thank you. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 11:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Block

Hi, you're blocked for three days for your edit summary at Series 15 (Doctor Who): "They do. But I guess you’d actually have to read them to figure that out". Please make sure to read Tardis:Edit summary and refrain from accusing others of not having read/watched or otherwise certain material. Shambala108 ☎ 14:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Erimem Never Die Twice

https://www.iainmclaughlin.com/

Dude, someone has literally already given you the source for this book being out. You're making the wiki far less accurate by reverting the edits of people who buy these books. Mr Cobblemouse ☎ 09:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No. The source was not given. Please don’t make false claims. Danniesen ☎ 10:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw, you still haven’t replied to my message on your talk page. It’s bad precedent when people cannot provide sources for what they claim. Then anyone can claim something has been released when it has not. You say you have the Lucy Wilson books on your shelves, yet literally anywhere I look, they are still labelled as pre-orders. We need to prove if something has been released because as you might have noticed, the more obscure books and stuff keep changing their release dates up. The link you provided to the Erimem book is a good proof, but the anonymous user who made the release claim did not provide the proof. And it’s not up to other people to prove someone elses claim true. Danniesen ☎ 10:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not a false claim. The user posted the source yesterday before my message. Candy Jar are notorious for not updating their website. Most of their recent books haven't been updated as released on their website, but are available and are posted as for sale on other sites. Social media and their newsletter are the best way to check whether Candy Jar have released titles. Also, it's worse precedent to assume other users are making false claims and taking down their work without checking the facts yourself beforehand. If you're unsure, ask people first before you take down their work. Mr Cobblemouse ☎ 11:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that photo. Also, yes I know the website is notorious for not updating, but neither did I find any other websites that labelled them as for sale. I was serious when I said that literally nothing I could find labelled them as for sale. Neither did their social media say anything. So obviously that’s suspicious when one person make a claim as to the opposite. Also, the anonymous user did not post any link to the Erimem book as proof. I checked. Edits are reverted when the claim is not substantial. Plus the user has had no previous edits, which makes the source-less claim even more unreliable. But the link is there now, so all is good. Danniesen ☎ 16:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)