User talk:Scrooge MacDuck

Prisoner of the Daleks
Hi, you were correct that I listened to Prisoner as an audiobook. While I realise it's not a conventional audio story it was my first experience of Doctor Who in the audio medium so it took the place. --Borisashton ☎  06:14, September 25, 2019 (UTC)

i read the talk page of the other in there i read you will make a page for the stranger you know i think stranger the other (11th doctor) are the same doctor in that era still can use his own tardis not to get back to his own he cant do that but you said when he first go there it was after the omegas death but he can time travel in gallifreys own time he possibly go there with tardis there are the same other and the stranger 11th doctor other comes from the future the stranger the other comes from the future also

Re:forum post
Hi I am referring to your post to User:Amorkuz that he must follow Tardis:You are bound by current policy. That's not your job to decide, mention, or enforce.

Please please please stop trying to second-guess everything said by the admins. We are trying our best to enforce the rules and educate the users, and it doesn't help to have users who nit-pick every single post for possible errors. Thanks Shambala108 ☎  05:13, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

Late answer
Hi, apologies, I was away from the wiki for a few days and when I came back I had several messages waiting for me. Somehow I overlooked your signature and answered your questions on someone else's talk page.

It's not a bug that the 10000 thread was not in Board:The Matrix Archives. When I close a recently debated thread, I leave it in the original board for a bit, because these boards, and especially The Matrix, are excruciatingly difficult to search, and I want to make it easier for those who have been reading/participating to find it. I did move it yesterday, so now it's in The Matrix.

And I've left the issue of whether to allow 10000 to User:Amorkuz and the other two admins, since they were the ones who did the major amount of research into this issue.

Thanks and sorry for the confusion. Shambala108 ☎  23:37, October 24, 2019 (UTC)

DCtT
Hey Scrooge, I was just catching up on recent Panopticon threads and stumbled upon this post, where you parenthetically mentioned that "Some [invalid stories] were meant as nothing more than a bit of "non-canon" fun, and shouldn't be misconstrued as an intent to make a new continuity. This would, for instance, include most parodies, and even things like Death Comes to Time."

I agree with your sentiment, and the parodies example is unimpeachable. But upon reflection, I realized you might not be familiar with the award-winning audio series The Minister of Chance, which was written by the author of Death Comes to Time in a very real attempt to continue the new Doctor Who Universe continuity started in that story. Maybe you already knew about this, but I feel as if it's aligned with your interests, so I just figured I'd mention it! – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 15:12, December 13, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Clown Court
Hi, I hope you understand that the reason why only admins are "allowed" to do certain things on the wiki is to keep new/inexperienced users from making mistakes that take time and effort to clean up. Allowing experienced editors to occasionally do such things might give new users the idea that it's ok for anyone to do it. So the rules are pretty strictly enforced for that reason.

At any rate, Thread:211580 ruled that DW skits in other shows don't need their own pages, but should be placed on Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe. The Clown Court special (TV story) is part of the Noel Edmonds Saturday something, and that is not a DW production, so its information should be put on the applicable Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe page, and then it should be deleted (as should Noel Edmond's Saturday Roadshow special (TV story)).

Hope this makes sense, thanks Shambala108 ☎  02:28, January 6, 2020 (UTC)

Arcbeatle deceptive practices
I'm really glad you asked. Because SOTO does not seem to be willing to allow additional fact finding. They are preparing to close the thread based on their research. Apparently, this research was not as thorough as all that, or else they could have closed the thread yesterday. So they just stifle debate to win more time for themselves. Not sure what precedent they base it on. Not sure how much more time they still need, after 4+ months of silence.

So let me explain how Arcbeatle Press games systems without spending too much money. They use the same strategy that Donald Trump used to get into the Forbes listing. The company publicly inflates their capitals, profits, or in this case fan base trying to pretend to be more successful than it is. Preferably, this is done in a hard-to-verify manner. If sufficiently many people buy it, the lie becomes the reality. The best part is that you can ask your friends, girlfriends, etc. to pretend to be fans. You can ask your collaborators to pretend to be independent fans and defend you publicly. The risks for them are low. The benefits for Arcbeatle are high. If you remember, in the first debate, several participants never disclosed their relationship to James Wylder and Arcbeatle Press until I called them out.

Turns out, the same happened earlier on Amazon, where Wylder publishes their books. Amazon has a review feature but naturally prohibits creators themselves from reviewing their own creations. You might be interested to learn that there Arcbeatle Press had less success than here. One of the people they list as employees was caught reviewing their own books and banned from reviewing on Amazon. This I have a proof of and would be happy to present it on the thread, although I fear SOTO would try to shield Arcbeatle Press from this damaging information coming to light.

Another marketing strategy included Wylder's multiple friends on social networks. He made one of his books free for some time and started asking all his friends to "buy" it. Friends did not lose anything. Apparently, he chose a good week for it because his book became the best "selling" book of the week in the category of free books in the genre. However, when trumpeting his achievement, Wylder omitted the mention of free and claimed that his book was best selling in this genre.

We know this strategy is successful: Donald Trump did become the president, after all. The tiny little problem is that people around you, those helping you have to lie. Just a little bit, just a harmless lie to help a friend. They probably even feel good: helping the underdog and stuff.

But these lies corrupt. I do not know if you like what is going on around the Arbeatle inclusion debates. Do you enjoy them? Would you like to have more of them? Wouldn't you like Revan to continue his activities, not being embroiled with conflicts of interests? This is the price this community has already paid for lies. I fear we are not done paying.

Sometimes I have questions because I have not been vigilant enough. For instance, in October 2019, James Wylder deleted all messages on his Twitter account. What is he hiding? I do not know.

Oh, and if you think that James Wylder never lied about the origins of his literary works, you might be surprised.

Let us see whether SOTO opens up the debate for me to present the evidence I have accumulated of these deceptive practices. I do not actually have a reason to believe you are connected to Arcbeatle Press. Sorry if it sounded like it in my message to SOTO. You can show your neutrality by demanding that this evidence be presented. Then the community can decide whether it is sufficient not to take every marketing statement by Arcbeatle Press as infallible. Amorkuz ☎  18:15, January 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I certainly do not know why the Twitter was handled that way. But it was not abandoned. James Wylder continues to use Twitter. One just can't see messages older than October. I agree that the deceptive practices I uncovered do not prove the lack of commercial license. However, the only proof of the existence of commercial license comes from James Wylder himself. It is a perfectly legal strategy first to obtain a permission to use some characters on one's blog, then advertise the stories, gather fans' approval, come back to the copyright holders and tell them, "listen, people would really like to buy these things on Kindle. Could you actually extend your license to a commercial one?" It is slightly less honest but still legal to start the same way, and after the stories become available, announce a commercial volume with them, collect likes and Facebook reactions, come to the copyright holders and tell them: "look, I've already promised, and people really like it..." In either of these situations, the actual process of converting a creative license to a commercial license may take time as the latter generally involves actual money, royalties, and other boring stuff accountants care about. In fact, these additional negotiations could be a perfect explanation why Arcbeatle Press has not published the promised volume commercially, while putting a lot of effort into these stories otherwise. Commercial negotiations with multiple parties take time. And we would not be able to tell one of these scenarios from the other because commercial negotiations are almost never public.


 * I have been suggesting from at least the middle of the first debate to wait till the stories are released commercially. On August 31, in our private discussions with SOTO, I explicitly stated:
 * "I would not stand in the way of inclusion when the book is published."

- Amorkuz to SOTO, August 31, 2019, 10:34


 * Mind you, CzechOut has long ago warned that a commercial publication is not a definitive proof that all rights have been secured (I think he used fanzines as a counterexample). But when the (most of) rights holders are aware of the publication and the publication is commercial, one could consider it more likely that rights have been obtained.


 * Now, on the other hand, all we can see is that the rights holders do not mind the stories being freely available (see, additionally, NateBumber's statement that there is no gatekeeping anyways). Commercial rights may have been obtained from all, or from some with others still under negotiations. In the worst case scenario, by the way, Arcbeatle Press may decide to abandon this project and switch to something new and shiny, like a Cwej-themed anthology, in which case they will have never needed to obtain commercial rights. Or it may be that they would really work hard but negotiations would fall through (for any reason), and again commercial rights would not be obtained for all characters.


 * In short, anything can happen, and we will not be privy to it. I believe this is behind BF policy of not announcing projects until basically the end of post-production is done. They do not want to withdraw any announcements are are super cautious about it. But there is nothing illegal about overannouncing and then retracting. It is a matter of style. And, as I mentioned earlier, James Wylder often tends to be on the hyperbolic side of things. Nor is he beyond even retracting an already published book. Unlike any other regular publication methods, Amazon self-publishing platform allows to simply withdraw a book. If I understand how Kindle works correctly, it will be erased from all Kindles that downloaded it, as soon as they come online.


 * This, by the way, has been another concern of mine regarding books published via CreateSpace. They are not stable. Authors are free to make changes provided these changes are minor, according to their self-declaration. This is in addition to being able to withdraw already published books. And Arcbeatle Press has done it at least once.


 * Alas, I was never able to persuade people to wait for a commercial release. Hence, we are left arguing hypotheticals with very little independently verifiable information. A lot of reasoning on both sides of the debate is of the sort "why else would they do it if not..." and "if they did it this way there in the past, they probably would do it the same way here." Amorkuz ☎  21:02, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Coverage and/or validity of dubs
Hi, sorry but you're going to have to wait a bit. I'm at a very busy time at work right now and don't have a lot of free time to edit on this wiki. I'll get on it when I have some time. Shambala108 ☎  01:49, March 20, 2020 (UTC)

A return to Skaro for the First Doctor...
The reason I labeled it as invalid is because, as of now, narrative trailers are still invalid. It's true that there is precedent for prequels being valid, but A return to Skaro for the First Doctor... wasn't released/promoted as such. It was labeled a trailer. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:37, March 20, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was, both in the trailer itself (see screenshot) and most recently, on the Doctor Who YouTube channel title ("The Doctor Returns to Skaro! | The First Doctor Adventures Trailer | Doctor Who"). OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:55, March 20, 2020 (UTC)

Lord President
Thank you for the edits to the Lord Presidency page, I was already in the middle of editing the Presidency template (as there were some severe differences between that and the page) before I realised that you were editing the page. I was completely dumbfounded as to where all the new information came from, but I have now quickly edited the template again to include your additions. Didn't want you to think I just swooped in to overrule you. Xx-connor-xX ☎  22:15, April 2, 2020 (UTC)

Editing the Presidency navbox
I hadn't given much thought about splitting all of line of succession up into eras - but I am not opposed to it and would love to see an example template if you were to make one.

I had definitely thought that something needed to be done with the template, and my additions of "aborted timeline" and "restored timeline" were only intended to be temporary. I still think that any completed order should have duplicate listings for characters who became Presidents more than once; Rassilon, the Doctor, Romana, etc, though.

The reason that I put "The Imperator • Pandak II • Pandak III" in a separate group was, unlike all the rest, they had no definitive order of who they came between. Xx-connor-xX ☎  16:07, April 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, I don't know much about the Imperator. I just thought he was Morbius, but they weren't allowed to use his name so didn't really know what to do with him in the listings. Xx-connor-xX ☎  16:20, April 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work on the Presidency infobox, but I definitely think that "wartime" needs to be split so that the Presidents of an aborted timeline (Head of the Presidency • Umbaste • The War King • Lolita • Unnamed President 6 • Padrac) are separated from the restored timeline presidents. Xx-connor-xX ☎  16:10, April 5, 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole Lord President page takes the narrative of all presidents between Romana III and Livia having been aborted: "Before her death, Romana III sent Irving Braxiatel into her past to undo her regeneration on the Moros. After he rescued Romana II, he persuaded her to prevent the war by stepping down from the Presidency and appointing her political opponent Livia as her successor." Likewise, Livia's page presents her as being an immediate successor to Romana (which the current template doesn't show with Livia being placed after Padrac.
 * I would suggest a break in the "Wartime presidents" box, due to the ambiguity, with Romana II being the last in that box. This could lead another box to be created and, like you say could be titled "Presidents during the War in Heaven" including Romana III • Head of the Presidency • Umbaste • The War King • Lolita • Unnamed President 6 • Padrac. The next box could be "Wartime Presidents continued" with Romana II • Livia • Valerian • Rassilon. Xx-connor-xX ☎  16:31, April 5, 2020 (UTC)

no problem my friend thanks

Check on
Hello, User:Scrooge MacDuck. I just wanted to stop by and check how you were doing in these trying times of self-isolation?BananaClownMan ☎  17:18, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Admin nomination
Thank you kindly for nominating me for the position of admin. I gladly accept. Let's hope everyone else agrees too! --Borisashton ☎  17:11, April 25, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm super sorry, but as indicated here, I've had to shelve this nomination immediately. Since the nomination pages are in an out-of-the-way place, and only you two were involved, I wanted to be as transparent as possible and make sure you were aware it had happened and why. 18:21: Sat 25 Apr 2020

Five Doctors Tweetalong
okay then if the five doctors are not part of doctor who lockdown what are they apart of then. Clarklloyd (Allons-y.) 14:33, April 26, 2020 (UTC)

The Other Ninth Doctors
hi i want to ask something curse of the fatal death is non canon but russel t davies said ninth doctor could be rowen atkinson doctor or shalka doctor can we not made them canon scream of the shalka and fatal death davies said they existed (okey in paralel or alternative üniverse) but existed

Cybermen
In regards the Cyberman reference in An Ordinary Man. Under UK law it's not a copyright infringement, as neither references nor names are protected under copyright. Thus, the use of the word 'Cyberman' is not protected. Only the actual appearance of a Cyberman would be - and in the book it's something Bill Bishop talks *about*, not something that is dramatically depicted, thus keeping within UK copyright rules. :)

Trial
The page is now unlocked for creation. Thanks for trying to create an article about the ordinary noun! 18:35: Sat 02 May 2020

Clarifying T:Not Valid
Hey there. ^_^ Just checking in on some clarification regarding the edit over T:Not Valid at this article. As is clear, template tells the reader that the article is considered not valid to readers who pass by. However, you wish the article to also have a line beyond that template to clarify the reason why. In that case, should this not then be done for every 'not-valid' article? And, if not, why is this article the exception? I look forward to your reply. Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   21:49, May 2, 2020 (UTC)

Precisely! Discussion is always better than edit war conflicts, as Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing states :).

Personally, as you have shown articles that also do this, I see no reason to remove the statement now. However, in the name of (as you say) promoting readers to learn of our policies here, it may be wise to indeed expand on adding the rationale for each article's need for the 'invalid' template. Admittedly, this not something I personally feel impassioned enough to do at present, but I may do so at a later date.

Thank you for the informative reply ^_^ Snivy   ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦   22:09, May 2, 2020 (UTC)

RE:Detailed List
Oh, nice catch. I didn't see that upon looking at the table. Now updated. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 20:17, May 3, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Cyber-Controllers
I'm not really sure. Honestly I had half a mind to make "Cyber-Controller (Flower Power)" and "Cyber-Controller (The Cyber Empire)" seperate because of the latter's cape, I only made them the same since they survive their appearance in the former, presumably going on to develop a bit of an ego in time for their second appearance. I would say that including the one from The Tenth Planet's novelisation is problematic as they were based on Mondas and so I did presume that they would have been destroyed when Mondas was, though as I recall it was not strictly explicit. --MrThermomanPreacher ☎  23:32, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

Skaro in the Cushing Movies
Ah, oops. Sorry, wasn't really paying attention to the debate, just going by what our policy currently is. (I'm personally fine if it's considered valid, I like having a big universe.) But if it is considered invalid, I don't really see what's wrong with these pages you mentioned being created? Like, we do that all the time, I don't see what's wrong there. And I do think that the Daleks and Skaro are somewhat different to what we see in the rest of the universe. Only if the debate decides invalid though. If the films are valid, then they 100% deserve to go on the main pages.

But yeah, I could've definetly timed those edits better. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  17:32, May 12, 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see where you're coming from. I'll reverse my edits, till a decisions reached at least.Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎

Daft Dimension image
I wanted to bring up the fact that making that Daft Dimension 551 image higher res has messed up the colours, the exposure is completely off now... WaltK ☎  18:23, May 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * side note, but also about editing of images, why would you question the validity of the DWM illustrated previews. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  18:26, May 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks Scrooge, i assumed youd have your reasons. ill have a little look for the discussion, but im useless at finding them! DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  19:04, May 27, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion Board
Hi Scrooge, is there a way to view a poll you created without having to actually vote? Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  22:34, June 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks! Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎  02:39, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

Original Mammoths
So obviously if push comes to shove we can just ask him, but I'm not confident that Nate has the rights to the Original Mammoths. Christmas on a Rational Planet (novel) contains the following text: "Down on the ground walked the skeletons of mammoths, their ribcages stuffed with steam-powered engines, scholars and philosophers riding on their backs." The question is whether we take this to be emblematic of "original mammoths" as a concept, or just "mammoth bones" with stuff attached. Certainly the BBC doesn't own it, but whether it's Miles or Nate is ambiguous I think. Najawin ☎  03:04, June 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * So Obverse would have control over the rights to them currently if it wasn't him (even if Miles owns them), I presume, so I don't think that's necessarily proof, given the other writers involved, etc etc. But if you're confident given conversations with him that's good enough for me. Najawin ☎  09:20, June 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * He's made comments suggesting that (like, "I've washed my hands of it" and "go talk to Obverse"), but I don't know if he's ever explicitly said it. It'd probably take a while to find. Najawin ☎  09:27, June 21, 2020 (UTC)

Re: categories
I'm cleaning up Special:Wantedcategories. If you want a category to exist on pages, you must actually create it, not just put it on the page and assume it exists thanks Shambala108 ☎  01:51, July 16, 2020 (UTC)

"Cute"
Nothing malicious was meant by the word "Cute", other than the fact that it was nice and kind of you to go out of your way to help solve a problem (although you could have went directly to me instead if you thought I had ignored, or not seen, your message). Not a suggestion that you were either a) trying to get me in trouble for violating T:SPOIL or b) attempting to railroad an admin into looking at a specific topic under the guise of an issue already solved, in the slightest. Thanks. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  13:48, July 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when has “cute” been an unreasonable word? It was cute because the good intention was there, but ultimately unnecessary as the problem had already sorted itself out an hour ago.


 * But... maybe you know better than me about what language to use - seen as you recently questioned my sanity and suggested I bought a dictionary. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  14:00, July 28, 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m not a politician. And you are not an admin so shouldn’t be policing my words, if you have a problem with the word “cute” - report me. But at the end of the day I meant it as your actions were endearing as, I believe in all good faith, you were just attempting to solve a situation. Unless that wasn’t the case...?


 * And I definitely did not take your dictionary comment that way - nor you comment about my sanity. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  14:09, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

Re: DWBiT
So the reading I'm advancing of that comment is that if we have a "tie in work", and this "tie in work" is not in and of itself a story, or if we sum up the stories within the "tie in work" and it's not identical to the "tie in work", it would be invalid under rule 1, even if the content is narrative. This is the distinction between "only narratives count" and "only stories count", as well as the emphasis on the rule being practical. I think this is deeply outdated, and another reason to revisit rule 1, but I do think this is what is being said. Najawin ☎  22:22, August 11, 2020 (UTC)