User talk:Jack

Hi! Please note that per Thread:128198 only admins are permitted to move pages. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 14:30, October 26, 2016 (UTC)

Owen's death date

Hi. I noted you recently changed the setting of Corpse Day from 2000s to 2009 because "Owen's dead, so it's 2009" but, sadly, as Reset and Dead Man Walking (Owen's death and ressurection) take place during December 2008, we have two years in which Corpse Day and Believe may take place: 2008 and 2009. This means that references to his death can't be the only thing used to date these stories. Unless there are other IU-information that makes us aware of the specific year they take place, we should roll the "setting" back to 2000s. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 23:22, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, nice catch! Back when Corpse Day was released, I went back to look the date of his death date, and looked for the basic: death and ressurection. Didn't look A Day in the Death. Thanks for finding and pointing me the info. Will now change relevant categories on the audio story pages. :) OncomingStorm12th ☎ 23:48, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

One image per section

Just saw your edit on Time Vortex. Does this come from a rule somewhere? – N8 ☎ 23:56, March 20, 2019 (UTC)

Re: images

Hi I saw your answer to User:NateBumber. I'm a little confused as to why you removed images from so many pages if you disagree with the policy?

At any rate, we don't usually like to have rules that only apply for some cases and not for others. It's just too hard to enforce rules that don't apply to every situation. If you think it's ok for articles of a certain length to have extra pictures, what happens when the article gets too long? Someone would have to police that, and we just don't have enough people on the wiki who both are willing and have the time to check on this kind of situation. And just how would we define "particularly long pages" in a way that would be clear to any user? Sometimes our rules seem unfair or arbitrary, but they are there to make sure the wiki runs smoothly. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 01:08, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

Image policy

I'm trying to get an image policy finalized, and would like to invite you to discuss it on Thread:247941.

Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎ 22:24, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

Humans

Hi please read the instructions at the top of Category:Humans thanks Shambala108 ☎ 23:15, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the story, but humans are easy to categorize. If you know what century they're from, you have "Category:Xth century individuals". If you don't know, then you have "Category:Humans from uknown eras". And if they don't have a name, you also have "Category:Humans with unknown names". Contrary to popular belief, you don't need to have oodles and oodles of categories on a page; the requirement is one minimum, and the categories I cited are sufficient for characters about whom we know very little. Since Todd has "Category:21st century individuals", that is enough for our requirements. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 14:05, May 10, 2019 (UTC)

Hi, per Tardis:Signature policy, your signature must link not just to your user page, but also your talk page.

Anyway, I don't know why you bumped your old message; what exactly are you looking for? I've already explained that our category system covers humans no matter how small the appearance or mention. It doesn't matter if some of the categories are for individuals not humans, as our pages are supposed to be about the content; categories are just a means to organize pages. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 00:28, May 24, 2019 (UTC)

Re: why remove

Hi, in one of your edit summaries you posted: "Why remove something so easy to source?" I will tell you why.

Some of those "source needed" tags have been on articles for years. I am trying to clean up Category:Articles needing citation. There are hundreds of articles with that tag. I don't have the time to painstakingly search for a source for all of them so I'm just removing the information, and if it's so important, it will be added back by someone who knows the information and the source.

If you have sources for some of this info, great, add it back. But please refrain from complaining in the edit summary, that's not what it's there for Tardis:Edit summary. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 13:30, July 25, 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi if you are going to make it your thing to go after other users for edit summaries, let me inform you of two things:

it's a very big job
it's not your job

Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 13:00, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

Mcqueen

Hi, why is the requested change necessary? Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 01:08, September 19, 2019 (UTC)

Done Shambala108 ☎ 01:07, September 20, 2019 (UTC)

Infobox images

Hi please note that on this wiki, some infobox images need community discussion before changing. This applies to articles like the Doctor, the Master, and any companions.

In addition, "Looking left" is a preference, not a requirement. A requirement would be that the images are closely cropped, which none of the ones you used are. Please see Tardis:Guide to images for what we look for in infobox images thanks Shambala108 ☎ 14:09, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure that this community discussion would also apply to the amount of cropping? In cases like the Twelfth Doctor's, that exact cropping was chosen very carefully. I don't have the time right now to revert all of them so I'll try an get to it tomorrow if somebody hasn't done it before then. --Borisashton ☎ 20:51, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

Citation

Look, as far as I'm aware (though we can definitely check with an admin), covers for anthologies shouldn't be used to illustrate in-universe stuff. Images should come from stories, and anthologies are not stories (and even then, covers for audio stories are already "stretching" the definition of "image from a story"). OncomingStorm12th ☎ 14:44, October 12, 2019 (UTC)

Re:Citation

Hi, I'm sorry but I've had a really long and difficult day and I can't really figure out what you're asking me? Shambala108 ☎ 22:12, October 12, 2019 (UTC)

Just to update, I haven't forgotten about this, but I haven't been able to find anything yet. I'll get back to you when I have more info. Shambala108 ☎ 00:31, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Meta-Crisis Doctor Page

Hello. Before anything else is edited on the Meta-Crisis Doctor page, I wanted to reach out to you to hear your opinions - ibelieveinher ☎ 01:00, October 25, 2019 (UTC)

Spoilers

Hi please make sure you don't put spoilers in your edit summaries thanks Shambala108 ☎ 17:38, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

RE: Super-Voc

The only thing at Super-Voc at the time of deletion was a redirect to Sandminer robot. As brought up briefly at Talk:Sandminer robot, each type of Kaldor robot deserves its own page.

I deleted the redirect to encourage page creation, in the hope that the recent audio series has created enough interest that this little push will lead to better coverage for them.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 03:42, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

Gallifrey chapter house error

But borusa's clothing Is heliotrope that means he’s not prydonian he’s a Patrexes --User:JarodMighty 22:53, January 7, 2020 (UTC)

One thing

If borusa is a prydonian, then why was he and his followers wearing time lord clothing in heliotrope? Was it an error? —-User:JarodMighty 00:50, January 8, 2020 (UTC)

New pages

Hi if you are creating new pages for the wiki, please make sure to add at least one category thanks Shambala108 ☎ 21:33, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

As you can see from what I did, you can always put Category:Concepts ;) Shambala108 ☎ 21:46, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

Adjective?

Hi Jack, just wondering what your reasoning behind considering Genderfluid as an adjective? It's more of an identity, such as Time Lord and such. We also have pages for Transgender and such, so I don't see who this is out of place. And we do have a character that has this identity, plus a redlink on the character's page for genderfluid. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 21:19, June 9, 2020 (UTC)

See What Keeps Their Lines Alive and the page of Cá Bảy Màu , which had the link to gendefluid before I created the page. Also, it's not really the noun we are putting in, its the term as an identity. "A genderfluid person" and the like. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 21:31, June 9, 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi I don't have time to go into details right now, but please stop removing infoboxes from pages. I'll explain later thanks Shambala108 ☎ 16:39, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

Removing InfoBoxes

Hey may I ask your justification for removing information boxes from a lot of pages which have them for valid reasons? Just before I undo them. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 16:46, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

this seems very much like a breach of Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 16:55, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to prove a point nor causing any disruption. In these corona times, it's nice to have a project and there are many tiny articles out there with infoboxes. -- Saxon (✉️) 16:57, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

A lot of them a minor characters but have extra information that needs an information box as they are behind the scenes or affiliation stuff which can't easily be integrated in the text. As some where pages I created I'll take a look at those and re-add if necessary. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 17:08, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

I can see though as Shambala has said I can replace the information boxes if they contain an actor. I'm doing so as it makes it easier for users to find the voice actor. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 17:25, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

Ok, now that I have time to get into the details...

The general policy is that infobxes should not be longer than the articles. Infoboxes that are longer than their articles should be removed. However, ...

Infoboxes for story characters sometimes includes the actor. Putting that info in "behind the scenes" is awkward-looking, so we leave the infoboxes for those pages.
If you remove infoboxes that include images, but leave the images behind, you must include a caption for the images.
The fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of infoboxes still exist means that there must be some reason they exist, despite the fact that infoboxes should not be longer than the article. (As in the first point above.) Therefore, instead of removing any and all infoboxes that are longer than the articles in question, you should have asked why the policy exists and how it should be enforced. Instead, you ran into the possibility of being blocked for Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point.

To make a very long story short, if an admin corrects one of your edits, ask first before making massive edits that may not fit the situation you found yourself in. Shambala108 ☎ 03:21, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying some things from the Talk Page

Hi, so just to clarify, since it got a little heated, what I was doing wasn't intended to be a "call out" post. Far from it: I love Davies and Barrowman to bits, and their characters and works even more. If anything, I'd be extraordinarily angry if anyone tried to compare them to Roberts or Dreyfus, cause that would be a clear manipulation of facts. All I was trying to say is, "Hey, they said a thing back then that's kinda not the best, but they've reformed in their own ways, should we put that?" Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 00:37, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! (Also, thanks for your work on the Torchwood audio pages: Always great to keep Barrowman and Russell's legacy alive) Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 22:27, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Torchwood's great, gotta love it. Anyway, thanks for the convo! Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 23:27, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

Spoiler policy

It's always difficult to try and discuss spoilerific releases without putting spoilers in the message but.... let's try. Regarding you comment on this edit, yeah, that's basically it.

Although we're writing a page for a future release, so it's obvious spoilerific, we try to write it almost as if it wasn't, with a {{spoiler}} on the top. So the lead, infoboxes and templates, covers, links, et al. can be added (without creating redlinks, of course), but anything that will still be a spoiler once that page's contents are released? We keep that out.

So, since Volume 2 of that release will still be a spoiler once Volume 1 comes out, there's not really a point in keeping that on the page (as we'd need to remove it later anyway). It's also why the overall page only mentions the first release so far; everything else would need to be removed at some point, so why bother?

Hope this helps clarifying. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 19:06, August 9, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Origin Field

Thanks for pointing that out, normally I notice but I have been creating some pages a bit too quickly and not noticing. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 12:59, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

Panda

After your edit on Panda, I reverted some things, as they have a specific reason for being there. While I do think that Panda's page is quite messy, I invite you to come look at my sandbox, which is housing a work in progress rewrite. Hopefully it'll be more concise, and if you have any ideas for improvement, be sure to contact me on my talk page. Epsilon (Contact me) 13:20, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

And regarding those hyperlinks... well, they do exist, just for some reason they do not show up on Special:Whatlinkshere. If you're interested, they're Panda#Chef Panda, Panda#Art Critic Panda, and Panda#Author Panda. Epsilon (Contact me) 13:26, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

Dalek Prime

Hey! W/ regards to your reply on the Dalek Prime thread: please familiarise yourself with this and this. To cut to the chase, the Forums, while technically open, are not to be posted on at this time, so you really shouldn't have posted on Thread:257167 — you're not in trouble or anything, but you shouldn't. And by the same token, neither was I.

However, User:BananaClownMan's actions forced my hand on bringing this to an irregular closure anyway via an "offshore" closing post on Discussions. And the reason they forced my hand is the same reason I'm afraid we'll keep the Genocide Machine Emperor at Dalek Prime for the time being: it's much, much, much harder to unmerge pages than it is to merge them. Your points regarding the Machine Emperor were addressed to some extent — I think with authorial intent so clear, it falls within the "if a Master with a goatee fights Pertwee, assume it's Delgado unless otherwise noted, even if it technically could be Ainley" rule of thumb. Of course, we can talk about this again when we have usable forums once more. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:34, October 15, 2020 (UTC)

Video

All good! I've deleted it and then reuploaded it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:24, November 15, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Quick note on spelling

No problem, speaking of bad design, it didn't even alert me to you writing on my talk page, even more unusually, so I'm terribly sorry for this late reply. Anyway yes my apologies, while I was educated in British English, due to doing a LOT of programming lately I've accidentally switched into American English, will have to be more careful keeping myself in check! Sincerest apologies! Hope you are keeping well and things are going ok! How have you been? What have you been up to? DoctorQuoi ☎ 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

Wicked! I never had the smarts for law, so congratulations to you for completion! I know how you feel with regards to law. I have friends who cannot get "articling" positions (in Ontario, Canada, you are required to do something called 'articling' if you want to work as a lawyer, where you work in a law office/government directly under a lawyer for a year or two, but these positions are very limited), I don't know if the British system has the same thing or if we even got it from you in the first place? I do hope you manage to find something soon, but I imagine with the pandemic it's a bit... "difficult", to put it lightly. Good luck though, I hope it all works out! Ah yes, I remember you were adding some info to Ben's parents' pages. Hopefully I'll have some more stuff for you soon, I have a second Doctor audio marathon planned, will be listening to both companion chronicles and early adventures this holiday so I'll let you know when I get some stuff from that. Thanks for doing that though! I love Ben and Polly, so Faceless Ones animation was a real treat for me this year! Thanks for doing the Doom Coalition!! I completely understand with Ravenous... I'm kicking myself because I listened to them last year but hadn't joined the wiki yet, and I didn't like most of them so I'm really not in the mood to go back and have a listen to do plot summaries... I'll try maybe the ones with the Kandyman since they were ok. Hmmm, I was on a bit of a role with the audios last month, you can check my profile page for an update, but I stopped after the wiki update, because I've lost my sandboxes and following pages. Najawin showed me a way to get them back but the main problem is I've now lost EVERY page I was following and what's frustrating is I had saved a number of related pages to the audios so I could update them with new information from the audios but alas, you can probably tell what happened. So for now I've just been doing little bits here and there (I'm also quite busy but still, I can usually get one or two audios done during the weekend on my breaks) so otherwise nothing new. Real life, can't say much, it's end of semester, one step closer to completing Master's degree. Hopefully I get there in the end, but slow and steady wins the race as they say haha. DoctorQuoi ☎ 23:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

Regarding Leela Timeline Page

You know I did put to discuss the issue of the placement of Leela's adventures with the Fifth Doctor on the talk page in my edit note for a reason. Could we please discuss this without you or anyone else making an executive decision on the placement of these stories? Let's discuss this rather than resorting to edit wars, please. –Nahald ☎ 08:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello, there. I just wanted to stop by and wish you the merriest of Christmases, and a Happy New Year. BananaClownMan ☎ 14:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: "fandom drama"

Well, as I said, I'm not sure in what way it is relevant to the Wiki because nothing had been formally announced. I suppose it could be mentioned in the notes of Sheffield Steel: Essays on the Thirteenth Doctor that, as per this announcement, it is unlikely the implicit Volume 2 suggested by the tagline of "Volume 1" will be published by Arcbeatle Press? But I'm not really sure this is the sort of thing we put in authors' pages. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, really — my main concern is the third of the points I highlighted on Najawin's talk page. Roberts was reported to hold views that a lot of people find abhorrent, and he owned up to them immediately after (and ever since). Maleski has been accused of a crime and has yet to publicly comment on the matter. That is the key difference — I don't think the Wiki should be used to signal-boost potential slander, however many caveats and qualifiers we add to the sentence. At worst, fine, mention Arcbeatle said they were no longer going to publish works by Maleski in the future. But please don't get bogged down in the why, until and unless something more substantial than allegations arises. Also, jus give it some time. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Arguably we could take Maleski deleting their account as tacit confirmation, but, we all know the internet, especially this section of the fanbase, we all know that this isn't a good read on the situation. The Roberts situation was one where a work we already had confirmation of was changed due to his views, and the work was a DWU one, not a reference book. It's close enough that confirmation from admins is good to have, but still not the same. (Also, as a point of information, they haven't been accused of a crime to my knowledge. Depends on the specifics, but the accusations are broad enough to not necessarily be illegal, though repeating them is certainly dangerous still.) Najawin ☎ 23:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Policy-wise, Jack, you're not in the wrong. But I think it would be needlessly inflammatory — so long as the Twitter drama is still going on, at least. I feel like adding a big mention of it to Sam Maleski, one of the first-page Google search results for the man's name, would be viewed, and not unfairly, as the Wiki taking a side. I propose we table this discussion until a week or so from now, by which point the dust should have cleared. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

First names

Ah, but I'm using a pipeswitch to lead to a redirect to the currently dabbed page. Nothin' policy breaking about that. And where I am using the full name, I'm citing the novelisation. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 17:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

...but they aren't arbitary. The only reason the full names cannot be used on the respective pagenames was by a T:NPOV-violating closing post by User:CzechOut. But what I am doing isn't in violation of that, or even T:BOUND. I'm using their full names in a pipeswitch, which is not a violation of anything. Hundreds of characters have this type of pipeswitches, and it should be no different to characters from novelisations. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 17:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the latter example used regularly as well. Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 17:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Re:Multi-Doctor Timeline

Actually, I did not add the Inuse template, I assume whoever created the page did so. In any case the page has been around for at least a couple of weeks now, so the first 72 hours have long since passed. MrThermomanPreacher ☎ 10:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Charley Pollard Story Info

Just wanted to say bravo for your addition to Charley's page, I'm in awe of how well you've summarised the added stories. If I could thumbs up on here, I would! BritShadow 14:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Mistaken block

Putting this for the record: Jack's block of a few minutes just now was in complete error. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Stop auto-reverting my edits

your 15-30 second revert bot is stupid – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Check up page (talk • contribs) .

Anonymous

Search