User talk:Scrooge MacDuck

	Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Re: Re: Apology

You'll get no more clarity from me. I ignored you for a reason because you, like always, were going round in circles to get the final word. You are an admin, act like it. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 20:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

btw

You might want to protect Doctor Who (just because that page probably should be protected) and block the vandal. Najawin ☎ 14:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Admin help

Can I get an admin's eyes on Forum:TV Comic & other periodical issues? I just feel like I've been attacked in a very inappropriate way. OS25🤙☎️ 05:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia

An example.

Coffa: One of Jabe’s associates from the Forest of Cheem aboard Platform One. He was distressed to hear of Jabe’s death from the Doctor. (1 .2) (Played by PAUL CASEY)

MrThermomanPreacher ☎ 21:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Dirk Gently

Hi Scrooge, You said at Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (series) that you were going to make a thread on Dirk Gently. Do you mind if I make it, as I have a vague idea of how to do it, or do you want to do it? Aquanafrahudy 📢 13:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Aquanafrahudy 📢 13:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Popping in to ask

How's User:Najawin/Sandbox 9's sections (in terms of subsections + pictures? - best to scroll down a bit for best effect) this time? Najawin ☎ 01:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so whenever you think that should go live. (Obviously others can edit whenever they wish. Changes are still desired, especially since there's no S13 summary.) Najawin ☎ 04:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you push them live when you have the time? Cheers. Najawin ☎ 18:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Companions of the 13th Doctor template action request.

As the Template for the Companions of the 13th Doctor is Locked (for good reasons), and I have suggested adding Different (Canaries)to the template but no one has replied to this (also understandable most people can be very busy). So I am making my pitch to you because on the talk page you have been the only active admin. at the end of The Paradox Moon (short story)Siblijg Different now going by Mae sets of into the universe travelling with the 13th Doctor. May I thus suggest you ad Different to said template, thank you. Anastasia Cousins ☎ 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Anastasia Cousins ☎ 16:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: Life on Magrs stuff

Yeah, think you're probably right about Autumnal cat drawings; for a start, I hadn't realised about the fact that it's a different fictionalised version of Bernard Socks, and the Manhattan map shouldn't have been created in the first place. Not sure I agree with you about the Iris Wildthyme in the Post, but I'm iffy on that one. The one written in the style of Story of Fester Cat we should probably keep, and I was iffy about the Rue Broca one, but I think that might pass. What's your opinion on the poems? Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

But if you read The Story of Fester Cat ^[+]Loading...["The Story of Fester Cat (novel)"], Fester is quite definitely a defined, rounded character. And the same character pops up in A Year Since and arguably in Fester Cat's poem. And surely that tangible character is copyrightable. (Also, Party Like it's 1979 ^[+]Loading...["Party Like it's 1979 (short story)"] certainly seems to suggest that certain fictional versions of characters reappearing are enough to satisfy rule 2) (can't comment on Bernard Socks, as I haven't read Welcome Home) Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it has Fester speaking from a posthumous position, which he is able to in Story of Fester Cat, and it also more or less follows on from the end of Story of Fester Cat I think (but I'm not sure because a) I'm only halfway through the book and b) the book isn't linear). Aquanafrahudy 📢 21:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Come to think of it, do you think a dead anthropomorphic Fester Cat would be copyrightable? Aquanafrahudy 📢 21:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Curator returns

Hey. Finally back again. More stories for you, of course. Massive things. But first: Discord.

I've sent a friend request from a new account (Phoenix). We'll catch up there as soon as we're both online at the same time. (Internet access is still very much on the wibbly side.)

Mind adding me back to the channel, as well? Love from the Island.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 20:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Moving N-Space to "Primary universe"

I was reading a wiki page here a few days ago, and saw it refer to what has been typically called N-Space as a default term for the universe the Doctor Who franchise is set within as the "Primary universe", and I though that would be a good name that would put the "N-Space naming controversy" to rest. Unfortunately, I've forgotten in what story it was referred to as such, and can't citate the reference. I wanted to ask if you thought "Primary universe" would also make a good difference, and if you might know how to find the source? BananaClownMan ☎ 10:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Truth be told, I wish we could call it "The Doctor's universe" too, but, thanks to one Christopher Chibnall, to call it that would no longer be accurate, since he went out of his way to make it not the Doctor's universe, but their adopted one. I wonder why we can't just title the page "The Universe", like how Luna is titled the Moon or Sol is titled the Sun?BananaClownMan ☎ 17:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I get what your going with, but I'm afraid I'm too literal minded to accept it. Oh, and sorry about the galleries width. I didn't know it was a rule, I just thought it was picked at random. BananaClownMan ☎ 09:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: And Today, You series

Okay, thanks. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 12:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't notice that. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 06:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

T:POINT

Just out of interest, would a NuWho exclusion debate on my part be against T:POINT? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 14:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, personally, I interpreted those statements literally, and the point would have been that ordinary rule 4 apparently invalidates what most people are interested in us about. Probably still T:POINT violation, though. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 14:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Citesource problem

I feel now is a good time to bring up the problem with the citesource template, if it is indeed preventing story titles from italicising just because they are untitled, which violates a policy I can't remember on how all story names' need to be italicised. Furthur more, is there anything that came be done with hyperlinks such as, (COMIC: Endgame (part four)), for example. The brackets within brackets just doesn't jive well. I remember talking about this grievance in a forum, but the forum has not been updates for a while now. BananaClownMan ☎ 09:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry

I figured since some sources are mentioned multiple times, we only need to specify the medium once. But I suppose you're right that context is necessary. Please accept my sincere apology. BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Definite article

Hi, Scrooge. I was just wondering what the current policy is on using the definite article in page names.

Specifically, I'm wondering if the likes of White Guardian and Black Guardian need to be moved to The White Guardian and The Black Guardian to comply with current policy and when pages for non-individuals need the definite article. For instance, why does The Dragon Scriptures have it when we don't have The Time Vortex or The Scrolls of Gallifrey? Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 21:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Okie doke, thanks for that. I haven't been keeping my eye on the forums and just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 22:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes

Good evening.

I was hoping to find some clarity regarding why continuity sections were being remade from an out-of-universe perspective, when they are reference in-universe events. I had contacted the main advocate of the edits, User:Epsilon the Eternal, and they pointed me in your direction by supplying me with this quote from Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes;

Going forward, an out-of-universe perspective should be favoured in all continuity sections if possible. This is a big ask, and although it's an ideal to trend towards I will not demand that we pull out all stops making valid stories' sections conform to this. However, given that we're going to be creating Continuity sections when none existed, I can and will ask that all continuity sections on invalid pages, and "continuity to non-valid sources" sections on valid or invalid pages, be written from an out-of-universe perspective. I think that ought to solve Czech's issue, to whatever extent it may have otherwise been a concern.@Scrooge MacDuck, Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes

Readying this, I am given the impression that only stories marked as in-valid are to have out-of-universe written summaries, and that valid stories are to retain an in-universe summery. Am I correct in that assumption?

Thank you for your time, Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎ 20:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm coming to you directly to prevent any unneeded unpleasantness from happening, like you thinking I'm a vandal and blocking me over an honest misunderstanding.

I promise you I am not removing information, except the occasional titbits that are either incorrect or unrelated the the article. At worse, I'm just rewording some sentences to get more direct to the point and "trimming the fat", to coin a phrase, to avoid repetition. My main goal is to update the articles now that I have full access to the source material as part of my research into the Fourteenth Doctor's character in preparation for upcoming 2023 specials. Believe me, I dislike it when users delete information, too.

I hope to settles any trouble that has been caused. Sincrely, BananaClownMan ☎ 22:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh the removal of Whotopia: The Ultimate Guide to the Whoniverse was no accident, for two reasons. 1) It says "appears" and "imply", which means it is speculative and speculation has always been taboo on this wiki. 2) It dabbles in timelines, which have long been relegated to theory forums unless absolutely needed, in conjunction with the taboo against speculation. These points, plus its evident irrelevance to the short story itself, are why I took the initiative and removed it. BananaClownMan ☎ 00:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't have to explain every edit they make, otherwise the wiki wouldn't feel like a safe place for contribution. I'll have been editing for 10 years next June, and we've done fine with some good faith and talking it out if there's a disagreement. BananaClownMan ☎ 00:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get a link to a list of these policies? Because everyone's been coming out the woodworks lately throwing words like T:NPOV, BOUND and "by policy" at me, and I have no idea what they're talking about half the time. I'm just trying to edit like I always have, and seems I'm out of the loop on certain updates. BananaClownMan ☎ 00:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Forum:Clarifying in-universe deadnaming policy in response to Rose Noble

Hello. I am sorry for bothering you about this but I would like you to take a look at Forum:Clarifying in-universe deadnaming policy in response to Rose Noble as I feel that anonymous user 51.191.137.161 is skirting a bit to close to transphobia. (I am not saying they are but as a trans person I feel they are on the very edge of it) I would like you to at least step in and remained everyone to stay civil and polite. But due to the anonymous user having no prior contributions before this forum I feel that they really just arrived here specifically to add to this forum. Not to mention their constant accusations of that trans people are trying to make themselves the centre of the world which to me feels very very close to Transphobia and has made me rather uncomfortable. I added my views on the subject and soon after they immediately accused me of calling them cis and and said that is it foolish of me to think that trans people know more about being trans than cis people. I had not accused them of being cis. I was not even referring to anyone in particular. As well as arguing for real world people to have their deadnames on this wiki which I believe would be in breach of fandom policy. Now I will leave it up to you to decide what to do but please at the very least just step in and make sure everyone is playing nicely. and if I am in the wrong at any point in this please do inform. Anastasia Cousins ☎ 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Peri

Hi, Scrooge. I'm a little confused. Is there no limit to the length a story's coverage can be on a character's page anymore? Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 23:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I extended it from three sentences to five before you reverted it. The biography as it is now doesn't actually integrate anything from other sources beyond two insights into Peri's thoughts and feelings from the novelisation. I don't really see the value in detailing absolutely everything she does in that one story and think the important things can easily be trimmed down by several hundred words.

Upon arriving on Thoros-Beta, Peri and the Doctor were attacked by the Raak and captured by Kiv's men, but they managed to escape with Yrcanos after Crozier attempted to interrogate him to learn what provoked the Raak. The Doctor began behaving oddly and betrayed his friends to Sil, leading Peri, Yrcanos and Dorf to stir up rebellion amongst the Thoros-Alphans until they were stunned by Frax and imprisoned.

Peri was chosen by Crozier to become the host for Kiv's brainwaves. Assisted by Matrona Kani, he experimented upon her, resulting in her mind being erased and Kiv taking control of her body. To prevent Crozier's discovery from making Kiv immortal and affecting evolution across the universe, the High Council used Yrcanos as an unwitting assassin to kill Kiv by destroying Peri's body with a CD phaser soon after the successful transfer. (TV: Mindwarp ^[+]Loading...["Mindwarp (TV story)"])

If that's not enough, I'm really going to have to go over everything I've written on her page, which I've limited to the key parts of her involvement in stories rather than complete walkthroughs. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 23:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In which case, I'll aim for that much. At its current length, it's a bit indigestible. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 23:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

About spoilers

Just a double check. As it currently stands, I presume the policy on T:SPOIL ALLOW means spoilers are disallowed on any talk page outside of those limited examples right? Does it mean stuff in the Tardis talk: namespace, for instance? -- Tybort (talk page) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but what I said before appears to also apply to the caveats in T:OFFICIAL INFO, too. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Bulgaria school murder

Hi, Scrooge. Got a familiar bit of spam at this page and its talk page. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 13:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Cite source template clarification needed

Hello Scrooge. Hope all has been well. Congrats on being a staff by the way! Great to see you are still around ^_^ Was hoping you could help me clarify a matter.

Given Doctor Who was off air for about a year, I have come back to find there is this new “cite source” template used on TARDIS for citing stories as we have always done here with in-line citations and so forth. However, while editing, I have noticed there is inconsistency in which style is used among various editors and also within articles on the wiki. For example, in the same section “cite source” is used for one story but the next it is the classic “TV: Story” style.

I checked the policy pages but am struggling to find the new “cite source” one; the T:CITE one still commands the usage of the classic style. Therefore, I thought it best to ask you which one we are meant to be using or if we are indeed using all three variations but it depends on the circumstances (in-universe or out-universe, real world articles or character articles). Can you help provide some clarification?

I look forward to hearing your reply! Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 22:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh, okay then! So I do use it and where I see someone is using the old style or where the old style is still on the article, I should convert it to the new “cite source” one in all cases (regardless of the article)? Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 22:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Great! The wider editing base is aware of this change yes? Some editors appear to keep reverting my changes regarding this style; edit warring risks occurring it seems if editors aren’t aware and I keep having to change them back to the “cite source” style - loads more work too. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Executive decisions

When you've the time, Talk:Disney+ (in-universe) and Talk:Wild Blue Yonder (TV story) have stalled out discussion (imo) and could use an admin to make final calls on their topics. Najawin ☎ 23:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Page deletion

If you've the time, From the Doctor to My Son Thomas is just fundamentally flawed and should be deleted. It's blatantly plagiarized from wikipedia. Najawin ☎ 20:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you (or any admin who's online and reading talk pages) could have a look at Isaac Newton when you've the chance. The original IP user who accused me of violating T:NPOV is back and is vandalizing (#6) the page after Nate's ruling, refusing to accept it or move to the talk page. Blocking them and/or locking the page might be needed. (I'm removing myself as it's probably bordering on T:NO WARS here, even if it's technically vandalism.) Najawin ☎ 00:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Re:R4bp

As far as that thread goes, I'm perfectly willing to call that thread unresolved and start over, perhaps with a more narrow scope, or with a more structured framework for how to proceed. It's been two months just about since the last bit of movement there, and I'd have to reread the whole thing if there was a new response anyhow.

I do think there was some interesting lines of thought that we were working on, but the thread just became so long that there were, what, four, five of us who were engaged at the end? And those who tapped out earlier on missed out on just large swathes of that discussion. It seems a bit unreasonable for, in effect, four or five users to be having a discussion that's this foundational and everyone else to be filibustered out. But at the same time the issues at play are complicated and do require a lot of discussion. So there's just not a super clear answer here imo.

But I'd be willing to trust a third party admin, say Nate or Bongo, to call it unresolved and then open up a new thread with a more narrow scope or with specific rules of engagement (at least to begin with - something like analyzing Web Theory in particular in one thread, not discussing any other issues, or perhaps discussing how we deal with Roland Rat-esque situations and daisy chaining more broadly, etc etc) if you are. Najawin ☎ 18:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fair enough, no worries. And I did have some idea as to what you've been so busy with, given the shiny new site and all. Najawin ☎ 19:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

User report.

Hello there. I suspect that user TheSuperMarioBros2023 is a sockpuppet account of Hulksmashtheworld/Theincrediblehulk2003/The Worldbreaker Hulk/Hulkbreaktheworld. That's all for now. --AzureKesil ☎ 09:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

RE: Missing thread

Ahh, I see. So the intention is simply transfer it to the Biography sub page, then just trim it down to roughly 3 sentences. In that case, it sounds relatively simple - it's less a complete rewrite or the article and simply just trimming it down a ton, with the original kept as a first draft to draw upon. Thank you for the addition! Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 11:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Re:Templates and adaptions

I respectfully disagree. The "villain templates" are just for readers to get a quick look at which stories to look into to see where their favourite antagonists show up, hence we had that whole "when is a Dalek story a Dalek story and not just a story with the Daleks" debate a few years back. It's why the complete list of appearances is tagged on the bottom for a more deep dive into it.

What confuses me here is why there are now two editors adding The Giggle to the Toymaker's media box and not his first novelised story The Celestial Toymaker. And that's not even going into the bigger picture of then adding all adaptations to the other templates for consistency. Where would they go then? Would they get their own "Novelisations" group or be lumped in "Prose stories"? If the latter, how will we tell adapoted stories from original prose adventures? If the former, it will repentant because it's just repeating the TV stories in potentially anachronistic order.

Food for thought, BananaClownMan ☎ 14:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant the novelisations would be anachronistic in comparison to the their television originals, since the books were released at their own pace. For example, the Cybermen first appeared in novel form in the novelisation of The Moonbase, their second television serial. BananaClownMan ☎ 14:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to say. I'm just also noting that new editors unaware of the feature will most likely put them in episode order as opposed to release order, or reorganise them thinking they've been incorrectly placed due to being in the dark about the release order of the novelisations. It's just something to put into consideration if novelisations are to get their own group on character story templates. 14:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Pxrn uploads/vandalism

Looks like someone's bored and uploading inappropriate images here. — Fractal Doctor @ 20:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Master edits reply

Salutations. I wish to reply to you message on my talk page concerning my... "redrafts" of the Master pages, and hopefully clear up some confusion that seems to have taken place. Starting with the fact that I never intended my edits to come across as a redrafting of the articles. I started out updating them with some undocumented information, which I had intended to do when they were first individualised but never found the time before, and then took a closer look beforehand to see if there were anything else that needed editing.

Now, this cite source removal you mention. If you are referring to story links, you have me at a loss, since I actually went to great effort to avoid pasting over them when I was transferring updates from my Sandbox. But, if you are talking about the hyperlinks to the Master pages, like Delgado for the Master, I think there's been a misunderstanding on the intention. As I am sure you remember, we used to use those hyperlinks when Time Lord incarnations were on a single page to link the appropriate incarnation to the source. I even remember inventing some of them myself for this reason for the Rani and the Monk. Since incarnations now have their own page, I was simply cutting out the middle man when I could and just linking to the page the traditional way, like with the Tremas Master for example.

As for the this accusation, for lack of a better word, of removing information and my edits being "thoroughly out of order" and "wthout any clear justification", I'm afraid I must take umbrage with that. I'll tackle your comment from the Bruce Master about his bullet point on the "Echo" Master being moved to the Decayed Master first. Simply put, the "Echo" Master's bullet point was moved to the Decayed Master's page was because the information concerning the bullet point was on the Decayed Master's character profile, so it felt more appropriate to have the bullet point there for consistency.

Indeed, as I have said before, I too dislike when information is removed from an article, but sometimes bits have to be removed to avoid repetitiveness; why repeat the spirit of the same sentence when it can all be covered together in a paragraph?

As for your feedback mentioning some good being added that had to be reverted, in that you are correct, as many spelling and grammatical mistakes I fixed have been readded to the main article. For example, several "days to come" section are now covering the post-regenerations, again for lack of a proper term, instead of hints to the future heard from the past, or have been removed all together, and paragraphs are now starting behind images instead of underneath. As well as several valid updates to their psychological profiles, and the puzzling inclusion to the The Timeless Child citation on "References" to the source of the clips the Masters hail from, and the equally questionable removal of The Master's aliases from the character infobox. These reversions make me question why my edits were deemed "destructive", when, by all apparent accounts, they produced more positive updates than negative?

Now to clear up with I believe if the biggest misunderstand about this affair concerning my Sandboxes for the Master. I originally created them because the Master's incarnations were not individualised and comprised to a single page, which was hard to edit due to the sheer size, so I created the Sandbox pages to have a better editing space before moving the new information to the main page. Once the main page was separated into individual pages, the Sandboxes were no longer of any use, so I stopped editing them. I've only just now found the time to start transferring the information I never got round to adding to the main page over. I had actually thinking about putting some of the more redundant Sanboxes up for deletion once I had transferred the appropriate edits, only keeping the ones that delved into "head cannon", but I needed to sleep, so I stopped at the Saxon Master and planned to continue with Missy and the Spy Master before I started proposing deletions at a later date. So, as I hope I have explained, I do not intend to have my Sandboxes replace the main pages. I was just using them because they were easier to edit at the time.

For a final note, I'd like to tackle how you called my edits "unjustified". But, "unjustified" in what way? Do I have to write an explanation for every edits I make? Does that not go against good faith editing and my rights as a user to edit articles if I feel they need updating, and then justifying my actions when I revert an edit or restore my reverted contributions? What I'm trying to say is that I'd like more constructive feedback on this topic.

I hope you found this reply enlightening and satisfactory, Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎ 19:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

---

With the image files, it's not really a policy. Images are just generally slotted between paragraphs. But, for some reason, editors are adding them to the beginning of the paragraphs, making it hard to tell when the image ends and the sentences begin.

I'm afraid I must disagree with your assertion that "Aliases of the Master" only applies to incarnations with multiple aliases. User:Epsilon the Eternal added Aliases of the Doctor to the Fifteenth Doctor to cover one nickname, and I believe the Masters' pages should follow a similar principle, if for no other reason than preparation for aliases future works will give them.

Truth be told, I've forgotten where "Backstory" came from. I think I just misread the "Origin" subheading on the Lumiat without noticing.

Am I right in understanding that the main problem with my edits is that I didn't fill in the edit description? If so I must apologies for this. You see, I have a communicational disability that can make getting my points across clear, so I usually only fill in the description box when it's completely necessary. The rest of the time, I just assume readers will see what my edits are and come to same conclusion I had for making them. I hope that helps you understand my actions regarding leaving them blank.

Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎ 02:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have some confusion on this biography reorganisation point I would like to cover before I start penning my full reply. Am I wrong in that you recently reorganised the Toymaker's timelined biography without a talkpage debate or even an explanation in the edit description box? It's just really confusing for me at the moment to read one while another is apparently being practised. BananaClownMan ☎ 02:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

QA

Honestly this looks so bad I think it might merit going to Czech and asking him to talk to the team involved before this is UCP 2.0. The mandatory 3 answers per page is, frankly, surreal.

As far as email goes, still the same hangups. At least in part because my email accounts involve my actual name and creating new ones is such a hassle these days. (Why do you need my phone # for verification? I don't want you to have that.) In absolutely, entirely, completely unrelated news, were you aware that a friend of mine and DAVIS's did a recent review on Alien Bodies on yt? Completely unrelated of course. Najawin ☎ 21:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's a very isolated place with very few prying eyes and everything is, importantly, deletable.

It's just a hangup for me. Past trauma. Maybe in a year or three. We can hope. Nothing personal, I promise, and I am working on it with a therapist. Najawin ☎ 22:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I truly don't believe having an account there would be psychologically healthy for me. Addictive personalities run in my family and I've had bad experiences with social media usage in the past. While TBCotW was ongoing I noticed some bad behavior on my part without having an account and merely reading what others wrote. Only being able to interact as a guest places a rather large buffer there. Just. I'm fine finding out when everyone else does. I just wanted to make sure it was on people's radar as the problem I think it is. Najawin ☎ 23:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

(Ugh. Gah. I'll think about it. I do have a twitch, under a slightly different username, if you've one. I don't use whispers much on there, but given I technically already have it, you know.)

That's roughly my thoughts on the subject as well, but I brought up similar objections on their last blogpost about it and they just brushed them aside, saying that individual questions could be deleted so there'd be no problem. I think it's a UCP problem all over again, they're starting with small wikis and scaling up, so haven't thought about the unique problems that large wikis present. Najawin ☎ 23:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

'This user has turned on "Block Whispers from Strangers" in their privacy settings and must start a conversation with you first.' Najawin ☎ 00:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

Didn't take long for a vandal to come along. User 172.70.90.79 is posting inappropriate vandalism on the Thirteenth Doctor and other pages. Same goes for 172.71.134.112. FractalDoctor ☎ 00:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice of them to allow the testing of the block feature. I guess it was sadly to be expected that we'd get some vandals since the new URL has been widely promoted on social media (and one platform in particular). Sigh. Thanks for the blocks though. You admins are great :) FractalDoctor ☎ 00:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Block bug?

Morning Scrooge. I woke up earlier to find I was seemingly blocked until August 2024 for "vandalism" - however I have been editing both versions of the Wiki for years now and I'm not sure what happened? I have since refreshed a few times and now I am able to edit pages again. Just flagging it up - is it a bug? (Also, I did notice that when I was blocked it was impossible to get in touch with an admin on site, as it prevented me from adding to / editing Talk pages too. Is there a workaround for such cases?) Hopefully it was a weird glitch in the Matrix! — Fractal Doctor • 09:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Twitch

Oh that's a bother. From googling it seems like this is something they toggle from time to time. And yeah, I saw OS12 migrated over after I asked that. Najawin ☎ 01:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, about the thing we discussed earlier, what's your math background? I'll start with a rough outline based on that and figure out how I'll get it to you. Najawin ☎ 22:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Block

Hi. I've just found I've seemingly been blocked until 26 August. The notice gives the reason of vandalism and states the block started 26 Feb (which I know is incorrect as I was editing earlier today). Guessing it's some kind of bug. I've noticed User:FractalDoctor posted something on your talk page recently and it looks to be a similar issue. I'll keep refreshing as they did and see if that solves it. Thanks. 66 Seconds ☎ 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I had this on my first day here, then again the other day. A few refreshes resolved it. I also flagged it up here: https://tardis.wiki/wiki/Forum:General_Discussion_of_the_Fork#Bugs/fixes/etc. × Fractal • 21:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What's especially odd is that, looking at Special:BlockList, no one was blocked on that date, so it's not even that you're getting assigned someone else's block.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 21:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Re:SB

No, that's what everyone thought at first! But then in the airlock scene we went entirely the other way. That the episode seems nominally pro choice, but the underlying ethos it's asking us to adopt is simply pro life + pro welfare. (Treating the bogeyman as identical to the others, saying you save them all, etc etc.) Again, don't think this was intentional. I think it was Davies using iconography without a ton of care, being sloppy, and getting this result. Najawin ☎ 00:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I simply disagree, if you're going to invoke that analogy, and then compare the villain to the harmless, helpless, babies in this way, and use this as justification for saving them, I think that's going to inevitably stir up the metaphor again. Perhaps, however, this is influenced by the fact that when the parthenogenesis machine did the analysis for the composition on the bogey monster our immediate guess was unfinished, uncompleted babies rather than snot. (Frankly I didn't think RtD would be so juvenile on the opener. Ah, to be so optimistic as myself only 4 days ago.) So that might have colored how we read the airlock scene. Najawin ☎ 01:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you?

Did you really do that just to get back at him for saying we were all coping? (I already made him read the The Cosmology of the Spiral Politic (feature) article, he's just being stubborn.) Najawin ☎ 03:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Well that certainly answers my question, but I was thinking of T-Time, in light of the discussion this past week with SB Audio and the nature of Time Lords/the Doctor. Najawin ☎ 03:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

FP forum

Just refreshed it after the new episode for, uh, obvious reasons. If you have admin perms you might want to check in, someone posted some spam in the last day. Cheers. Najawin ☎ 02:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Topical Pages

Might it be worth adding Sutekh to the list of topical pages? — Fractal • 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

IP user removing delete tags

So the IP user who's been doing all the colour/clothing/pattern edits lately I've noticed has been removing {{merge}} and {{delete}} instances on a few pages (Baldric and Celadon (colour) being the latest examples I've noticed). I'm not sure if there's much that can be done but I thought it should be brought to an admin's attention. - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 19:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Passing on a recommendation

Ah. So, I came across a book that's currently on sale on Amazon, rather massively so. Since it seems to be relatively well written on a topic we've discussed before, and is a history written in a way I thought you might appreciate, I figured I'd pass it along. Even if it is, well, Amazon. Najawin ☎ 02:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

IP editor removing deletion tags and reverting edits

Hello, Scrooge. I think admin attention is needed with regard to the IP user's 2A00:23C7:AE85:3A01:B548:8648:AF80:33B0 edits.

They have been repeatedly reverting the removal of categories for "human war criminals" and "human war heroes" from several articles. Other editors and I had been removing them as in most of these cases there are no sources referring to them as such, and the IP editor's edit summaries only seem to be opinion based. There was a discussion on this on at Category talk:Human war criminals, as a lot of the articles added appeared to be T:NO RW violations. They have also continually removed the deletion tags from "human war heroes" and "war heroes", two categories which they created. I have reverted their edits twice and have attempted to direct them to talk pages, but they have ignored this. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time they've done this. BlueSupergiant ☎ 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)