User talk:DiSoRiEnTeD1

Welcome to the DiSoRiEnTeD1

Welcome to the Tardis!
Layout
Naming conventions
Things with the same name
Links
Images
Allowed sources
Community
Spelling
Admin
Your account

Thanks for your edits! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool!

We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first.
British English, please
We generally use British English round these parts, so if you're American, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card.
Spoilers aren't cool
We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details.
Other useful stuff
Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:

• the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
• our Manual of Style
• our image use policy
• our user page policy
• a list of people whose job it is to help you

If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! —  you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this:

~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on my talk page. SOTO ☎ 09:37, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

Spoilers

Hi please carefully read through Tardis:Spoiler policy. The novel pages (and accompanying images) that you created have been deleted for now in accordance with the policy. Thanks Shambala108 ☎ 14:17, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion policy

Hi please carefully read Tardis:No personal attacks and in the future be careful how you talk to others thanks Shambala108 ☎ 00:50, May 21, 2020 (UTC)

i think i know which comment you mean, but would you be able to specify so im absolutely sure? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Inuse tag

In addition to the fact that the picture you added to Doctors Assemble! was inappropriate, note that you're not supposed to edit any page with an Template:Inuse tag on it. The tag indicates that someone is currently performing a lengthy edit they haven't published yet and is meant to prevent editing conflicts. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:13, May 23, 2020 (UTC)

you should not be jumping onto a new release and preventing others from editing it. how is that fair? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

It's not supposed to be fair or unfair: it's supposed to prevent several people starting to write a popular page like that at once, and half of them losing their work in the edit conflict. I've finished what I wanted to do now, if you want to make edits. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:41, May 23, 2020 (UTC)

Companion thread

I don't see how the message to User:CzechOut was in any way rude. I merely asked him if my interpretation of the situation was correct. It is his prerogative, as an admin with experience of similar past debates, to decide if it is or isn't and then get back to me. I didn't reference you either so I'm not sure what your problem is. --Borisashton ☎ 22:11, May 25, 2020 (UTC)

it seemed like a sneaky attempt to point out that my discussion needed deleted by admins, despite me telling you that it was about two different topics. if thats not the case i apologise. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Take a minute to think your replies through before posting them, Disoriented. You need to keep a calm head and respond professionally. :) TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 22:18, May 25, 2020 (UTC)

I'll also note that other users pointed out that the other rationale for leaving the thread open, placing companions into the slots that already exist, isn't necessarily sufficient for a thread to exist. So it's not as if he just hadn't considered this angle. It's not sneaky to ask an admin to close a thread he doesn't think should exist, though I don't think that's what he did here. Najawin ☎ 22:21, May 25, 2020 (UTC)

i dont think he represented the thread correctly. if he thinks that the second topic isnt worthy that would be fine, but he only mentioned one part of it - that i had already told him i was distancing myself from and focusing on the second part, that is why i thought it was rude. as i said, if it was unintentional i apologise - it did not need two others jumping in telling me to calm down or other suggestions. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

I don't appreciate the implication that I was being "sneaky" and it could be construed as a violation of T:NPA. I asked Czech about this because I used a quote from him that unambiguously indicated that the thread should be closed and your explanation of the several other topics the thread covered could have thrown this interpretation into doubt (though not in my eyes) hence why I asked him for clarification for this specific discussion. Me asking Czech was actually in support of your interests and, depending on what he responds with, could change my position on the closing of the thread. --Borisashton ☎ 22:28, May 25, 2020 (UTC)

i did not call you sneaky, or imply it. i simply said that is what i thought - to answer why i said that i thought your comment was rude, and i said that i apologise if this wasnt the case. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Excuse me?

Hello. I would like to know why you accused my edit here of 'vandalism'. This is a rather rude and hostile accusation to make against my editing and my character. If the edit was incorrect, you are better to explain to me civilly why rather than rashly accuse me of vandalism which is hardly an appropriate or civil reaction on your part. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 11:12, May 26, 2020 (UTC)

I had already posted on Banana’s page why both edits were problematic, and I explained to you that one was problematic but you still went and changed them both back and told me to check a talk page that had no verdict! DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Posting on Banana's page is hardly reason to expect me to know that. It's a bit much to expect users to go around looking on another's user's talk page for verification (especially without prior knowledge to such discussion) on a matter as it is their talk page rather than my own.

Plus, I do not recall where you explained to me it was problematic. Perhaps you could source that claim? Also, I notice your passion for edits concerning this companion dilemma but is it really necessary to shout at users? Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 12:01, May 26, 2020 (UTC)

my comment on Banana's page was right before your removal of my correct edits, as was tagged with "problematic edits" - so maybe that would hold a clue as to why i made the changes and would have prevented you from undoing it? DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

I think it is a bit much to expect me to look at another user's talk page every time someone leaves a message there. I'm not even staff on this wiki, so has no jurisdiction to look at another's talk page without someone calling my attention to it first. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 12:07, May 26, 2020 (UTC)

you reverted one of my edits to an incorrect version, siting a minor unresolved discussion, when the edit before yours was my comment on a user's talkpage with the tag "problematic edits". of course i expect you to have read that before immediately undo'ing my correct edits. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

You mean this? In my defense, you phrased the remark as a question, as if you were unsure and seeking clarification. I proceeded to do so by reverting the edit and then pointing you to the talk page on which staff members themselves resolved it as invalid. I see no issue here. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 12:19, May 26, 2020 (UTC)

Defining Proto-Time-Lord

Hello. Can you clarify for me, based on your understanding, what a Proto-Time-Lord is? Please be independent of this wiki's article on it, since I'm asking for your view. Thank you in advance. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 12:28, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

first of all it doesnt really matter what Proto-Time Lord is as we cant favour one source over another - she was said to be Human + Time Lord in 'A Good Man Goes to War' and therefore that has to be reflected on the page (and it is anyway - as she is in all of the human categories).

BUT my understanding of what a Proto-Time Lord is - simply someone that is not a full Time-Lord, but that doesnt change the fact that River is still part human. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

also, it has been a long time since i listened to The Diary of River Song: Series Three and i cant even remember if River was even called a Proto-Time Lord or if that term was only used for the clone prototypes created by Kovarian using River as the original template. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Proto-Time Lord is just the proper name given to “Human plus Time Lord”. It’s the same thing. River is human but genetically engineered into a Proto-Time Lord. The rest of the Proto-Time Lords were cloned from River’s embryonic DNA making them, like River, genetically engineered humans. SarahJaneFan ☎ 12:51, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

but River wasnt genetically engineered to become Human plus Time Lord. she was born that way, the others were genetically engineered to become Proto-Time Lords. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

i think the article says it best when it states "Madame Kovarian harvested Melody's embryonic DNA in order to clone more children like her. This resulted in the creation of River's clones, the Proto-Time Lords." the clones were the Proto-Time Lords (prototypes of Time Lords based off of River's Time Lord DNA). DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

I never said anything about favoring one source over another; all valid sources are equal here. So, by your understanding @DiSoRiEnTeD1, a Proto-Time Lord is anyone who is part Time Lord? Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 13:00, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

no, my understanding is that the Proto-Time Lords are only those that were genetically engenired prototypes created by Kovarian using River's Time Lord DNA. i cannot recall any mention of River herself being a Proto-Time Lord but, as i say, it has been a long time since i listened to the audios in question. if it just meant Human plus Time Lord it would include a lot more characters than just River and her clones; Donna Noble, the Meta-Crisis Doctor, Alex Campbell, to name a few. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

River was genetically engineered by the Silence, it says so in A Good Man Goes to War. The Doctor even states that you can’t just cook up a Time Lord through exposure to the Time vortex and Vastra notes that it gave them a good start. River is the genetically engineered one, the rest of them were cloned from stem cells that were already “Proto-Time Lord”. SarahJaneFan ☎ 13:10, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

it would be unfair of me to continue arguing my own point until I get a chance to relisten to the story. But even if what you’re saying is correct, “Proto-Time Lord” is not JUST human descended - as any race could be genetically engineered that way. So having human + Proto-time lord is a must in my eyes. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

So, until we all re-listen to the audio, the claim that River is both Human + Time Lord and thereby (somehow) Proto-Time Lord + Human is unconfirmed. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 13:38, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

do not understand this comment in the slightest. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Allow me to simplify. The claim that River is both Human and Proto-Time Lord is (by your admission) speculative. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 13:45, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

how is it speculation? when according to User:SarahJaneFan's definition any species could be genetically engineered into a Proto-Time Lord so Human needs to be stated. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

@SarahJaneFan never stated Human had to be added to the infobox, and even then that would be an assertion, not fact. End of the day, we can not decide on this until we have listened to the audio dramas again. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 14:00, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

if this sounds harsh, i apologise, but at this point i do not know what you are reading. three times now, in this thread alone, you have replied to something that i did not say - it is getting incredibly tiring. nowhere did i say User:SarahJaneFan stated that Human should be added to the infobox!

all i said was that Sarah has good memory of the story and gave the definition for River being a Proto-Time Lord as she was genetically engineered, but i pointed out that nowhere does it say that only humans can be genetically engineered to become Proto-Time Lords. therefore Proto-Time Lord does not go hand-in-hand with a human descended, and Human would have to be included in River's infobox as "Proto-Time Lord" itself does not cover the fact that she is part-Human. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Like I said, we will have to listen to the audio drama again to know for sure. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 14:14, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

fine by me, but until then "Human" can stay in River's infobox as it was stated in A Good Man Goes to War and until we've relistened neither of us can come up with an argument against that. and even User:SarahJaneFan's definition means that we need to include Human in her infobox as Proto-Time Lord isnt just strictly for humans. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎

Claims of Sabotage

Let's be clear. This treads very clear to a violation of Tardis:No personal attacks. I actually think the rule is rather strict and am not upset. But I'm simply pointing this out for future reference. To directly address the claim, let me point out that I started writing up my post on Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown! before you started writing yours on Talk:Vincent and the Doctor's Gallery (webcast). There's a mere difference of 7 minutes between them and a large difference in length, with actual in depth reasoning. So I very clearly at the very least started writing this before your talk page post was made, if not was actually started. I'm not saying this to give my discussion precedence, but instead to point out that I can't possibly have sabotaged your discussion or done anything intentionally if I was attempting to discuss things in good faith before you had even opened a discussion.
As for the idea that the discussion you raised was about whether it was a story, this is just actively false. You asked "why was this removed before any discussion has taken place"(paraphrased), and then brought up fan works as your perceived reason for it being removed. I then responded on this page, suggesting Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown!, a minute after I had made my post, since I had just noticed that you made these comments. So at this time you had not discussed whether or not it was a story in any way. On the other hand I had. In reasonable detail.
Again. I say this not to criticize you, but simply to point out that I could not have sabotaged your discussion in the way you suggested simply from timestamps alone. Najawin ☎ 17:19, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

i do not know what else to call it. you started your own discussion, and tried to avert attention from mine - even going as far to remove my comments from one page and post them onto another (which you were blocked for!). i was completely fine with your unblocking, but what i am not fine is with you still continuing to push your discussion as the main one when it only came to be the one more focused on as a result of your misdeeds. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 17:22, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

DWM illustrated previews

Oh, I wouldn't. If it were up to me they'd definitely be valid. But I distinctly recall there being a lengthy forum thread on the subject of whether they could be used outside Behind the scenes section — look it up in the Matrix Archives if you like. And I could be wrong, but I think its conclusion (much to my displeasure!) was that no, the images weren't any more valid than promotional posters and would have to be confined to BTS sections. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:32, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

Images

Hi there, I think Help:Image cheat card might be of some assistance to you. Don't worry about it, I'm sure pretty much everyone violated at least one of these when they first started out. I know I did! --Borisashton ☎ 23:06, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

thanks, ill give it one more go after reading that again. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:08, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

i tag the image as being 500px but it still comes up saying 824x900. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:09, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

Category thread

Hi there, I saw you gave my proposal at Thread:271132 a "kudo". Could I trouble you to expand on your feelings in words? Your opinion on the matter could prove valuable as you so clearly opposed the creation of any categories. Much thanks, --Borisashton ☎ 20:31, May 28, 2020 (UTC)

Spin-offs

Hi DiSoRiEnTeD1, so the reason I changed the heading on the spin-offs article was that all spin-offs we cover are licensed, and I felt that the way it was phrased felt like it was degrading the other spin-offs that weren't exactly BBC produced. Is there a better way you feel that it could be put? Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 21:58, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

It should be discussed on the talkpage, but some of the listed items aren't produced / overseen by the BBC. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 22:10, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I took issue with only one heading being given 'licensed' on it. But yes, we should definitely discuss this on the talk page. Hope to see you there! Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 00:35, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

Policies

Hi please leave it up to admins to determine when/if someone is violating policy thanks Shambala108 ☎ 16:58, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

I have left it up to you, but I thought I’d be allowed to voice my opinion if I saw a breach of a rule? especially when the user had already been blocked for the same thing. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 17:00, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

If you have a question about whether someone has violated policy, ask an admin. Do not presume to accuse another user of violating policy. Shambala108 ☎ 03:23, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Interpretation

This was addressed in that very thread. My statement was to imply that Scrooge and I were obviously to oppose such a decision, so it would require a thread, not that you had to make one immediately and this was the proper course of action. Hence

My point was more that you weren't going to convince Scrooge and myself. But fair enough.

Though maybe I wasn't clear enough about that in Thread:275671. I can understand the confusion, but what you're describing just isn't accurate. As for not explaining it when it actually happened, I just didn't see a need to? The issue in question had moved to a forum post and it was unlikely you'd experience something this severe again (that couldn't have reasonable discussion on a talk page and common ground found) in the near future. Najawin ☎ 23:20, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

sorry but this is completely false, your original statement speaks for itself. i do not wish to go over this again. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 23:21, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

I don't deny that my statements were confusing and that your interpretations were eminently reasonable and should very much be allowed / taken as a valid reading of my comments. Which, ironically, places you on the same side as me on the larger "interpretation" issue. Regardless, I agree, we shouldn't be relitigating the already contentious Monk issue in an unrelated discussion. (Though as to why "don't give out instruction on policies if you're not an admin" was brought up when the discussion was "don't interpret other user's comments" I will never be certain.) Suffice it to say that I trust this discussion due to history is likely to get uncivil, and we're certainly already running foul of T:FAITH. Najawin ☎ 23:55, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

personal attacks

Hi I'm posting this here to not derail the thread.

You want an example of a violation of Tardis:No personal attacks? Here you go: your comment to User:Scrooge MacDuck in Thread:275671 right above my admin note:

"you repeatedly took glee in telling me that I was bound to T:BOUND and quenched my attempts to challenge Monk. But then when I open a discussion to have it assessed separately you tell me that it should be covered in the main thread... it’s an absolute joke, and clearly an attempt to control the discussion in your favour."

I've bolded the attacks in question.

And as for your complaint about my posts: it's the job of the admins to enforce policies. However, I was trying to avoid pointing fingers at individuals when I make my blanket statements. Frankly, when it comes to doing admin work, it's damned if you do and fucked if you don't. We block violations, we get complaints. We ignore violations we get whining. And it's only recently that these forum threads have gotten so contentious, and since you want specifics, mostly with you and User:Najawin, who seem to get into these endless arguments about who meant what when they said this things and that other thing.

I have tried really hard to overlook some of the bile (and in fact am assuming good faith in doing so) but these threads are getting derailed with the back and forth bitching. The thread about Lockdown, that one of you cited, reached 500 posts and had to be closed down, which has never happened on this before, mainly because of the whining and complaining and bitching.

It has to stop, and I'm at a loss on how to get through to everyone (especially you and Najawin, since you want specifics). Now it's your turn to come up with a way to conduct these threads civilly, because I've had enough.

Thanks for your time Shambala108 ☎ 20:09, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

(note: I was typing all of this and didn't see the post you left on my talk page until after I posted the above. Hopefully this answers your questions there. Shambala108 ☎ 20:11, July 23, 2020 (UTC))

No. You do not get to complain that my posts are not specific and then complain when I do get specific.

I am not sure you completely understand Tardis:No personal attacks if you think your comments to User:Scrooge MacDuck that I posted above aren't personal attacks. Please carefully review that policy.

I am not sure you understand just what an admin on this wiki is. We are unpaid volunteers (just like non-admins), and we have jobs and other real life commitments. And we don't necessarily live in the same time zone as you. It is our job to enforce the policies on this wiki, which sometimes means some of the policies don't apply to us in the same way. (For example, if admins have to assume good faith and not accuse someone of violating personal attacks, how would we ever block someone for violating the policy?) Since you are new here, you may be unaware of how carefully we choose admins here.

I don't spend all my waking hours here. I come here and take care of a few things. If I happen to post my comments right after yours on a forum thread, it is not singling you out. First, it has probably happened to lots of other people, and I know for a fact I've had to correct user edits almost immediately after they make them just because I happen to be online when they are. And second, you probably think it singles you out because you most likely didn't notice when it has happened to others, only to yourself. Since you make so many posts on a forum thread or talk page, the probability of me posting right after you is pretty high.

At the end of the day, I don't have time for this shit, and I do have recourse in dealing with it. It's up to you how you want to interact with people on this wiki, but I'll tell you now, one of the reasons I've been lenient with you and Najawin is that you are both new users, and unlike some other admins I don't usually block new users who violate Tardis:No personal attacks if they seem to be editing in good faith. But there are limits, and you are getting pretty close to reaching them. Thanks for your patience Shambala108 ☎ 22:21, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Re: "Cute"

If so I still suggest you brush up on acceptable levels of language. It is nothing short of bizarre to refer to someone's administrative actions as "cute", especially if it is meant literally.

As to the issue itself, the reason I petitioned SOTO instead of you is that I believed you were simply offline at the moment (hence not having rectified the situation yet) and that T:SPOIL issues must be taken care of with all possible haste. In any case, I would urge you to post a reply saying you have performed the edit, if a similar situation presents itself some other time. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:56, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

The dictionary comment was avowed hyperbole, and I believe you understood it as such. "Cute", on the other hand — what — can you imagine a politician taken to task about whether a particular, notoriously useless policy decision by a predecessor was a good idea, trying to argue that it was well-intentioned (albeit useless) by calling it "cute", with a straight face? Seriously? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:04, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

Without getting dragged back into the rest of it, "what in the name of sanity" is not questioning someone's sanity. It's similar to "what in heaven's name" or "what on earth". It's also used in The Big Bang. Consider it a topical bit of stylistic flair. Najawin ☎ 14:06, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

I did not take it that way at all - just like your repeated attempts at putting me, and others, down by calling our views “weird”, “absurd”, “ridiculous”, etc. If this was anyone else they’d be taken to task - case in point my comment of “absolute joke” being highlighted as a personal attack. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 14:11, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

I am not policing your words; it certainly doesn't constitute any kind of an attack, if that's what you feared I was implying I believed. I am simply saying, as a matter of courtesy between two users, that it makes me uncomfortable and I wish you'd use a more impersonal tone when discussing Wiki policy. We may not be politicians, of course, but we are an administration, and that is in that sense that I was making the analogy.

Regarding "sanity", Najawin said it better than I could.

Regarding adjectives like "weird", the gist of Tardis:No personal attacks, as emphasised in big bold letters by an admin a few points ago, is Argue the point, not th eperson. Giving an opinion (albeit more or less extreme) about specific opinions and arguments you are making is not against Wiki policy so far as I or anyone is aware. Trying to discredit one's intellectual's opponent's views while forwarding what one believes to be true is kind of the whole idea of a "debate". --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:18, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

If your actions being called cute makes you feel “uncomfortable” but then you can justify questioning someone’s sanity, don’t bother. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 14:21, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Weird I note that Thread:278505#10 explicitly affirms that me calling arguments poor or bad is not a violation of T:NPA. Obviously there's some daylight between that and calling them weird or absurd. But it's certainly my understanding of the rule that this is kosher, albeit as a new user, and that's what I've been operating under. (Hence why I've commented on people's positions or arguments and tried not to guess at their motives or suchlike.) Najawin ☎ 14:26, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

I did not question your sanity. As Najawin pointed out, the phrase "In the name of snaity" (which also appears in The Day of the Doctor, in the mouth of the Doctor himself) does not refer to anyone's sanity in particular. It is an invocation, akin to "For Pete's sake", which does not actually involve accusing anyone in the conversation of being called Pete.

If anything, "in the name of sanity" could be taken to mean "for the sake of everyone's sanity", that is to say, "could we calm down before my sanity begins to crack". If it's about anyone's sanity it's about that of the person who says it.

But really, it's just a figure of speech. You're not insane, Rory didn't really drop out of the sky, we're good.

Also, if you have something to say to me, you should post it on my talk page. That is how these talk-pages work on this Wiki. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:28, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

The term “cute” to refer to actions is a popular phrase too, yet you take issue with it but can’t see how I can take offence to the prehistoric questioning of mental health.

@Najawin You do not have to butt into every conversation on this site, this one is between me and Scrooge. Thanks. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 14:31, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

T:POINT

You have proven yourself, time and again, a disruptive influence on this Wiki. I truly believe you are capable of being a good and useful editor, but you clearly need some time away for a certain policy to sink in. That policy is T:POINT, which you have brazenly violated at User talk:Shambala108 by doing specifically the one thing I pleaded for users not to do: open the dratted Monk discussion again.

Be sure to avail yourself to Help:I'm blocked.

Owing to this being your first block, I have given you a comparably light sentence: two weeks. Upon your return, I expect you to please not reopen any messy Monk threads, or things of the sort, and instead get some practice actually editing the Wiki. You are clearly capable of this, and it would be of far more use to Tardis at this time than yet again more edit-warring about Peter Harness's writings. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:06, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing problems with your behaviour

…And, twenty days later, having been unblocked, you then proceed to again stir up trouble by claiming spurious admin authority at River Song (it is not up to editors to take decisions in matters of consensus).

And I have just discovered that despite my linking you to Help:I'm blocked, you not only failed to go talk to me about your ban on Community Central, but you instead bothered a different admin about it. Misrepresenting the situation in the process, both accusing me of things I did not do (if I were in the business of closing discussions in my favour, I would have ruled Monk valid, for one thing; but that would have been against the rules and so I did not do that), and carefully eliding the fact that you were blocked because you disregarded direct admin instructions.

All of this should earn you another block, because you're still disrupting this Wiki to prove a point. However, since you appear to believe I am some sort of dictator with a vendetta against you, I will not do so. I will prove you wrong. I shan't block you — yet.

But only if you do what you should have done on the 4th of October: apologise for your violations of policy. Go on my talk page and show me you understanding that your violations of T:POINT were wrongful behaviour. Do that simple thing, I'll accept the apology, and (provided you don't engage in any more behaviour like this) all will be forgiven.

Otherwise, you will have shown that you have no interest in engaging with the community or improving your behaviour, and we, the admin team, will have to impose a longer ban on you. Because I know people are sometimes too busy to edit the Wiki, so I'll give you until Sunday — or until you otherwise show you are active on the Wiki. If you have but a few minutes to devote to the Wiki before Sunday, make it that. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:05, October 28, 2020 (UTC)

RE:Admin behaviour

Okay, across all messages that were left in several pages, there is a lot of to go through, but I'll try to adress everything:

• Firstly, it's common admin practice to not close threads in which they participated, but it is not, but any means, a hard rule (and even then, this is a practice most thought to inclusion debates).
• Secondly, it's quite hard to say that Scrooge MacDuck went closing them all "in his favour" when his position was for the story to be valid, and still he closed the second thread mantaining it's invalidity.
• Mere two hours after a thread on How the Monk Got His Habit was closed, you opened another thread about it. A ruling on our coverage of the story had already, for better or worse, been made.
• But all of that is kind of tangent to the reason you sent the message: your block. Asking an admin to review another's "to be completely incorrect" is exactly the spirit of T:POINT. There will always be people who don't like/agree with the outcome of a thread; if everyone agreed on every subject, we wouldn't need threads in the first place. We simply cannot go "reviewing" every decision a given user didn't like simply because they don't agree with it, or else we'd spend our entire time here doing just that. Therefore, a block (specially one as short as two weeks is not far fetched for a T:POINT violation.
• Now, moving on to the River Song discussion: you were part of that discussion from the start, so you knew that it was happening. Yet you decided to make changes regarding that discussion before a ruling over the discussion was made on the talk page. This is a direct violation of T:BOUND. It matter little whether you, me or any other user agreed or disagreed with it. Until and unless a rule is actually changed, you are bound by the rule as it currently reads. Do not take action based upon your proposal [...] (emphasis mine). As far as I can see, the person who made the first change in months regarding River's species was you . Please wait for rulings on consensus before carrying out any changes.

Now, (hopefully) bringing this conundrum to an end: Scrooge's first blocking was not in the wrong, and he already (publicly) stated he will not give you a further block on this subject. In a further act of showing good faith, neither will I. Moving forward, let's put our efforts into actually editing the wiki and improving it, but, and I'll emphasize this again, Until and unless a rule is actually changed, you are bound by the rule as it currently reads. Do not take action based upon your proposal [...]. Your edits are extremely welcome here, but we can't go back on forth on the ruling of threads just because we disagree with it. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 20:15, October 28, 2020 (UTC)

I'll start off by rectifying my comments regarding the River Song; upon further checking, you are correct. As of the time the discussion was started, her infobox included the "human" paramater, and should maintain in until a time where an admins draws the talk page discussion to an end. Every other point was quite clarified by me previous message.

Regarding new messages that came after my reply: warnings over needed changes of behavior are neither unfounded in the Wiki's history, not uncommon. Also, notice that accusing someone of blackmail, which verges a legal matter should not be done lightly, and verges T:NPA. Lastly, at no times Scrooge tried to force you (or even implied) that you should "speak to [him] privately"; all he asked was that you came to talk to him on his talk page, a public space on the wiki.

Anyway, that said, my previous instance remains, as does my advice: let's put our efforts into actually editing the wiki and improving it. This subject obviously got everyone heated, so I further suggest we all take a brief break from here. If you have any comments regarding editing the wiki, or other matters, my talk page is always a "safe haven", but this matter's had the ramifications it warranted, and we should all clear the slate and start over. I'm certainly doing so. Happy editing :) OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:44, October 28, 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of the River Song timeline, putting aside the obvious question begging, I'm just going to note that you seem to have forgotten that June comes before July. I also described my action as so:

I reverted the edit effectively on instinct given the change + reasoning given, and had it stated "T:BOUND violation" I likely wouldn't have.

And came to your defense on this subject, admitting that I made a mistake based on an unclear edit summary. To accuse me of violating T:POINT here borders on a T:FAITH violation. Indeed, I came to your defense at the very beginning of this whole affair, in spite of our past sparring. I understand that you're worked up, but if this is how you're going to handle things, I don't plan on casting pearls before swine. Najawin ☎ 22:02, October 28, 2020 (UTC)