User talk:Timelydia1234

Categories

Hi please do not add categories to pages until you've edited with us for a while. We have a lot of category rules, and a good rule of thumb is: if a page is missing a category, there might be a reason. It's always a good idea to ask an admin if you're not sure thanks Shambala108 ☎ 03:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for one month for violating Tardis:No personal attacks at the discussion boards, specifically "Least Favorite Doctor?" Your comments, "Anyone one who says 9, 10 or 11 are deranged" and "@Bruce Wayne of Earth-1 its so embarrassing you think your right and you don’t know how stupid you are" violate the policy; the first one is directed in general at anyone who disagreed with you but the second was a direct personal attack at an individual. Incidentally you also reported the post that User:Anastasia Cousins made warning you about the policy. Do not do that in the future. Reporting posts is for posts that violate our policies. Shambala108 ☎ 18:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor/Appearances

Hey, there was a recent policy change about how we deal with appearance lists. We now allow invalid appearances in those lists. I highly recommend you join our discussions in the Temporary forums to provide feedback and your perspective to our discussions! More voices are always welcome, and it's a way to keep up with policy changes. Cheers! Najawin ☎ 00:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

im sorry that's stupid why would you put a invalid stories in appearances lists they are not canon so the doctor did not go on that adventure because its invalid this rule should be changed. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timelydia1234 (talk • contribs) .

In regards to User talk:Tsjadwtc, I think that you've misunderstood, actually. The exact quote is:

"Moreover, as proposed in the opening post, rule 3-failing (e.g. unreleased/unproduced) stories may now be added to lists of appearences as a separate section below the main list."@Bongo50

@Bongo50 specifically specified rule three failing stories go in a separate section, not regular invalid sources. You can ask @Bongo50 for clarification if you want. Many thanks, and happy editing.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Also to clarify about canon, our validity systems are fundamentally not the same as a canonicity system. As highlighted on T:VS:

"A valid source is one that we as a wiki believe satisfactorily and intentionally describes information and events in the Doctor Who universe. If a source is marked invalid, it is not because it is "worth less" or "didn't happen"; it simply means that due to some aspect(s) of the nature of the source, we don't consider it able to be used as a reliable and actual account of the DWU. Hence, two contradicting sources can be considered equally valid, while one that seems like it fits in may not be for the reasons below."T:VS (emphasis mine)

Many of our "invalid" sources are as such for technical reasons such as branching narratives or even lack of narratives, but this never meant that the author intended for them to be non-canonical. There is a big difference between invalid sources and non-canonical sources, and as per T:CANON, this Wiki does not care about canon.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Just butting in to say that if you felt that this was wrong, you should have taken the time to voice your arguments when the thread was active. When the thread in question was active, consensus was reached that this was how it should be done going forward. Just a heads up for next time you have an opinion on how the wiki should handle things. Danniesen ☎ 14:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

but why would you put adventures the doctor didn't actually gone because there invalid in appearances lists its stupid people are so dumb I swear – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timelydia1234 (talk • contribs) .