User talk:Scrooge MacDuck

RE: An Unearthly Child
Hi. Thanks for explaining. I was aware that the pilot had something of the sort suggested but seeing as it is invalid on the wiki, I thought the broadcasted version must have suggested it as well. I was terribly confused for a minute there, thinking I had forgotten something (which, to be fair, is not an uncommon occurrence). Thanks again :) LauraBatham ☎  13:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Yet another instance of User:Epsilon the Eternal exceeding four revisions on the page Poppy Munday. It is becoming increasingly tiring now, especially as the image he keeps applying has been challenged by several users on the talkpage. RadMatter ☎  15:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU
Oh, thanks.. you're an angel. I was having a lot of grief with that. What's going to happen to the fool who is vandalising the wiki? Saint2 ☎  20:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Potential Vandalism
Potential vandalism worth considering to delete (https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal). DJAitch ☎  13:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

RE: Invalid info
My bad. Sorry. Luckily I only did a few pages so it hopefully shouldn't be too much trouble to undo my edits. LauraBatham ☎  01:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Green Global Chemicals
Thanks for the ping, I've replied at Talk:Global Chemicals! – n8 (☎) 12:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Cyber Foundries
I noticed a few days ago that you renamed Cyber-Foundry to the Cyber-Foundries. Wouldn't it be suitable to omit the from the title? I know the Master says "the Cyber-Foundries" all in one line, but I don't think that therefore the word the is needed for the title, like how pages such as Dalek Empire and Seal of Rassilon don't use the in their titles, even though they technically could. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  11:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, apologies that I haven't replied sooner. Whilst I understand where you're coming from with regards to the name The Cyber-Foundries, I personally feel that the The in the name still isn't necessary. If somebody was confused by the title and, at first glance, they thought it was incorrect, all they would have to do is simply click on the page and they'd immediately realise why the page has a seemingly plural name. I'd like to start a further discussion on the page itself. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  10:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

An user accused me of being jealous

 * https://tardis.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000003438477/r/4400000000011661751 Matipereira User talk:Matipereira

Master template
I did not have the template saved anywhere. If you would be kind enough to move it to a sandbox, say User:BananaClownMan/Sandbox/Mastertemplate, I would be most grateful. And my Doctors template too, please, if it also goes against any template policies.BananaClownMan 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Imagery
It's not a weird precedent at all. We have often fielded complaints from people who say they'd like images of them or family members taken down. Fair use clearly doesn't apply in such a situation. 22:59: Mon 17 May 2021
 * "Fair use" isn't a privacy issue. And my removal of the pictures in questionn had nothing to do with anyone's privacy. Rather it was a matter of complying with the wishes of the copyright holder, and that always trumps the nebulous notion of "fair use".  When someone asks for an image to be taken down, it is. That's standard practice, no matter what wiki we're talking about. But in this case, it's also in Tardis' self-interest because we surely don't want DWM's legal team coming after us. Beyond that, it's simply the correct and courteous thing to do -- and it's something we've done on this wiki several times before. After all, we aren't entitled to put a single picture up.  We exist only at the will and pleasure of those who hold the copyrights for the topic we cover. Furthermore, there is zero argument at all which required these particular pictures to be uploaded as an illustration of that particular person. I'm quite certain others could have been found which would not have raised a single eyebrow at the DWM offices.


 * Finally, remember that Wikipedia have a much greater claim to being an educational resource than we do, and they're constantly taking down pics for copyright reasons. Thousands of pics get pulled from Wikipedia every year. Today's action was just a normal part of running wikis, even if it's something you haven't yet encountered as an admin. 23:44: Mon 17 May 2021

Re: T:VS elucidation
Thank you for those clarifications. I will add them to the table tomorrow. That point about Can I Help You? is interesting and definetly something I would like to debate once we have the forums again. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  20:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi
Can you please lock my post because Users are getting into a comment war and I can't stand it. Proof: https://tardis.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000003453366/r/4400000000011863244

Early Bird
Just in case someone wants the evidence/reasoning for deletion here are the pictures: RadMatter ☎  13:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)




 * OH, true enough! I think it must have been an edit conflict that stopped me from posting, then I saw the page deleted. RadMatter ☎  13:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Daft Dimension Numbering
I am very sorry about changing the format. I remember it being without the number and the very quick check I did found a page where it was without the number (Boys (The Daft Dimension 560) which I have just remembered that I created (although according to the edit history I forgot the citation and that was added later by Doug86 (linking to the incorrect instalment)) and have now fixed). While I do not like the current method, I will not change it again. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  13:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Benny infobox image
If you weren't aware, I've added a new candidate for the infobox image over at Talk:Bernice Summerfield, so you ought to check it out! 📯 📂 23:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Dalek Appearances
Having slept on the matter, I see your point: it does kinda makes sense to have parallel universe equivalents of a species on a species' appearances list. I'll edit Kaleds - list of appearances and Thals - list of appearances to accommodate Masters of War and The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Four. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  07:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just reverted vandalism to Ian Levine by user 82.45.10.63. It violates numerous things including using unnessary swearing on the Wiki as well as targetted harrassment. Just thought you would want to be aware of it. Have a nice day. The Farty  Doctor   Talk  10:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Re: Dr. Who
Oh yes, I'm definitely in agreement with you there. Just as we would typically use "the Doctor" in plot summaries and the like, the same should apply to Dr. Who. Danochy ☎  11:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Mad (as in "Angry") Larry
He doesn't specifically mention the scripts (which, like Mr Saldaamir, had been available for free online for years) or the PROBE crossover, but it seems to me that his citations of Saldaamir and Eternal Escape are just examples in support of his real thesis that "you [should]n't buy any Faction Paradox material from BBV." So I interpret the entirety of BBV's 2020s Faction content as what he's decrying, not any of the releases in particular. – n8 (☎) 16:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think CoI is playing a role in my revision of the page, but I see what you mean; I don't think the decider here needs to be an admin, so maybe I'll try to drag in Borisashton or Najawin (PBUH) to break the tie, if that's ok with you?
 * Oh, regarding The Plot of the War, it's definitely summarizable, as you can see at the awesome DWRG page for it; but my thought was that there's little utility in a section which will likely remain to be added until the end of history, when a plot summary is already given (albeit in a distributed fashion) by clicking the links to the entries. The story-order listing of entries is already kind of unique for story pages on the wiki: we don't list tables of contents for any other book. But I don't feel strongly either way, so I'm completely okay with being overruled on this point. – n8 (☎) 16:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really hope he's okay! – n8 (☎) 16:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the original Eternal Escape warrant a short story page? RadMatter ☎  18:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There was mention of "The Enemy's homeworld" but I'm not sure if that is enough. RadMatter ☎  19:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Black Dalek of Vengeance
Hey. From listening to Vengeance last week, there's only one instance (at least, I'm pretty sure from my memory) where the Black Dalek is referred to as "the Black Dalek", and that's by Magnus Drake. On all other occasions, it's referred to as "the Dalek Supreme". But more importantly, it's explicitly destroyed by the Master late in the story, with the Dalek Litigator explicitly stating immediately afterwards to the Master "you have destroyed the Supreme".

Besides, loads of stories featuring a Dalek Supreme of some kind refer to their Supreme as "the Supreme", and yet we know that these Supremes aren't all the same individual, what with how many get blown up, and stuff like the Dalek Supreme Council confirms that multiple Supremes can exist at the same time. The same goes for Black Daleks - they're a rank as well as an individual, yet they may be individually referred to as "the Black Dalek", but that doesn't make them the same individual. I'd say that the Master blowing up the Vengeance Supreme with his mind makes the latter separate from the Black Dalek Leader, because without some kind of indication of its survival, nor something bigger to indicate that the two Black Daleks are the same beyond the words "the Black Dalek", there's nothing that says the two are actually the same.

Now that I think about it, the Vengeance Supreme being called "the Black Dalek" may just be a simple stylistic choice, given that, in the animated trailer for Master!, the Supreme appears as a black-and-gold variant of the red-and-gold Supreme Dalek design from The Stolen Earth and Journey's End. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  22:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem! Glad to have helped. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  13:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Davros (Unbound Universe) help
I'm trying to add an "affiliated with" section to the infobox on Davros (Unbound Universe), but for some reason, even after adding the info I'm trying to add, it won't show the new section on the visual editor or the preview. I've tried various edits on both the visual editor and source editor, and I'm getting nowhere. Could you help me? Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  16:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I was trying to add four affiliations to the "affiliated with box" because I thought, what with pages such as Dalek and Cyberman having more than four affiliations, that I could add more than three. Is the difference because Dalek and Cyberman use "Infobox species", whereas Davros (Unbound Universe) uses "Infobox individual"? Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  16:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess I could. It's probably not a very big deal, given that we could just swap out, say Kaled (Unbound Universe) from Davros (Unbound Universe)'s infobox and stick in Quatch Empire instead, seeing as, of the four key affiliates this Davros had, the Kaleds are perhaps the least significant, and therefore could just be swapped out. But perhaps it's worth a shot for the long run. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  16:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This is somewhat unrelated, but there's something else I'm curious about regarding Davros (Unbound Universe)'s infobox. Would it be appropriate to specify in the infobox's name that the subject is from an alternate universe? As in, changing the name of the infobox from Davros (as is the case for Davros and Davros (Palindrome)) to Davros (Unbound Universe) - just to be a tad more specific. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  16:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Alrighty. I take it that also applies to infobox sections such as "species" and "place of origin", given that they're also in-universe? In which case, I'll undo what I did a few minutes ago. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  16:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Cool stuff. Thanks for helping me again. I'll undo what I did on Davros (Unbound Universe) earlier. Thalek Prime Overseer ☎  17:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Re vandalism
Hi, that last two reverts you did, you may want to look at Osgood and Kate Stewart, as they did the same type of vandalism on those too Valeyard12.5 ☎  21:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Cyan Doctor
I was referring to this: https://dwexpanded.fandom.com/wiki/Cyan_Doctor. Is that a mistake?

Master links
Hello, there.

I wanted to ask something that, no matter how I phrase it, sounds nit-picky, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to at least ask all the same; would it be possible to change the links for War Master and Spy Master to "War" Master and "Spy" Master. I think it helps illustrate that these are nicknames for these Master instead of official titles.

Also, do you plan to go even further with this idea, like "Saxon" Master or "Tremas" Master? Could this be the first stage of getting individual Master pages.

Thank you for your time, Sincerely, BananaClownMan 02:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:Scrooge MacDuck: Well, great minds think alike, don't they? ;p
 * Just after I posted my reply, I saw yours, and turns out we gave more or less the same rationales, but worded a bit differently. OncomingStorm12th ☎  02:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Nick Scovell
I think you're mistaken about the plays Nick Scovell was in. I can't find them anywhere on the wiki. Since they aren't covered, I think he should be removed from the Doctor actors category. MystExplorer ☎  13:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok but they aren't mentioned on either of the stories' pages. So they aren't covered by the wiki. MystExplorer ☎  15:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact is that they aren't. So by definition, Scovell should not be in that category. So I am going to remove him (again) and I am done arguing about it. Sorry. MystExplorer ☎  15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and create pages for them then. MystExplorer ☎  15:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Worshipful reply
Its the “copied on the real book's” part that I have an issue with. To me it doesn’t read right and isn’t 100% clear in what it’s trying convey. Up until that point it makes perfect sense.

I would maybe change it to something like:

"Salyavin left a decoy in its place — really a copy of a human work of fiction, entitled The Hitchhiker's…, disguised in the real book's red binding."

SarahJaneFan ☎  22:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much the size of it. Plus the fact that the title of the book had just been mentioned made it seem like the title was copied onto the binding, which didn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps that is just book-making jargon we aren't aware of, but the fact we aren't aware of it would be a good reason to use a different term.

Also I think referring to it as the "original book" rather than "real book" would increase the clarity so maybe "disguising it in the red binding of the original book"? Danochy ☎  23:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Seeing your reply to SJF, I see you're now saying it's a different red binding, although your original post did say it was made using the same red binding, so you understand the confusion. Regardless, I suppose I better amend my suggestion to "disguising it in a red binding based on that of the original"? Danochy ☎  23:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That’s fair enough, but this comment of yours did kind of imply it was the same binding, hence the confusion:

“by rebinding it using the same red binding as the real Worshipful & Ancient Law”

In that case, I would just suggest changing "copied on" to "based on" or "inspired by". I feel something like that would make the sentence far clearer. SarahJaneFan ☎  23:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I make a sandbox page in the template namespace?
I'm working on a template that I really need to have saved in the template namespace, rather then the user one. Could I create a sandbox page in the template namespace, potentially at Template:Bongolium500/TEMPLATE NAME? Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  18:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: don't wikify your own material
Hi since I'm not 100% sure what you meant on the page, I can't fix the following error, so I'm pointing it out here: Obviously I have a pretty good idea what you meant but it's probably better that you fix it thanks Shambala108 ☎  04:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On Tardis talk:Don't wikify your own material you have User:OncomingStorm12th listed twice

Tabular list of appearances demo
I don't know if you've noticed what I've been up to over at User:NateBumber/Sabbath - list of appearances and User:NateBumber/sortname, but I'm seeking permission to move the "sortname" template into the normal template namespace and implement this tabular list of appearances format over at Sabbath - list of appearances (likely in conjunction with a speedy rename request). I think it's a clear improvement over the existing format, as it can allow any reader to sort by medium and series like now, but also by release order and author. I obviously don't intend to replace every list of appearances at once – that would require further automation and SemanticWiki'ing a la Bongo50 – so my intuition isn't that it would require a forum thread to implement, but I figured I'd run it past a purplename before I just publish it. Any thoughts? – n8 (☎) 17:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

220.188.250.84 - spam
Just an FYI, if you check user 220.188.250.84 and their contributions, you'll see a lot of blanked pages that I have tried my best to reverse. The Peter Capaldi page hasn't balanced back to "0". In fact, it says "-3", so I'm not sure what the deal is there. Just thought you'd like to know and take whatever action you deem fit. Have a good day. The Farty  Doctor   Talk  04:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Two points of query
Hi, just wanted to inquire regarding two points that have come to mind.

1. The Wyngarde Debacle In light of the new Wikify page, I went back to mull on the original No Self Ref. and actually came to wonder if a particular circumstance with the Peter Wyngarde page may toe over the lines of acceptability. Though not added by Wyngarde himself, long been since passed away... in my own previous revisions of that page, I opted to document the ever complicated tangle that is his birth date. (You'll see well enough from the page that it's quite a tangle!) Three of those sources - which were all from the same site over different period of times and notably inconsistent with each other - always did perplex me but being that of his official fan club, I'd pondered that they may have had the same level of confusion as average onlookers do with Wyngarde's birth details.

But just the other week, it came to my attention that the fan club website has infact been run by a Tina Wyngarde-Hopkins. Following that back, it seems she claims to have been romantically partnered with him for 30 years... and further to that, Wikipedia's talk page seems to contain some form of argument between her & editors there. Now, I know we have to maintain NPoV - but would there be some form of consideration to be taken when an individual close to a real person claims a key detail in their life in an unverified and often inconsistent manner whilst they were alive and now after their passing? I wouldn't think it 'taking sides' if we were to conclude that - by whatever manner and intentions, perhaps that of simply being told so by Wyngarde himself in those years - there was an issue with the inclusion of those as sources.

No Self Ref is, I will admit, primarily meant for instances in which the person themselves adds the information to the page or an editor does so on the basis of their comments, but like I say, I have to ask if this might also extend to this rather complicated case?

It's a rather tricky situation, and after thinking on it the past week, I decided best to refer to yourself.

2. Non-cis and Non-het RW individuals It's been on my large "Things to tackle when the Forums return" list, to get to the implementation of non-heterosexual and non-cisgender categories for real-world individuals. I was thinking when I drafted my list that this would likely need to involve the forums but it was later brought to my attention that in-universe categories for this already exist. With that mind, as creating them would be to compliment the existing in-universe categories - and since a large part of the forum discussion on those in Thread 271132 was actually to decide the need/significance of having those & the best suited naming for such a category - would it be the case that there is enough precedent for making those categories right now without a forum discussion?

The thread decided a significance to having in-universe cats, and that they should be named "Non-cisgender individuals" & "Non-heterosexual individuals".

So, would real-world cats in the same vein not be just as valid to add presently, provided they were named in the same scheme i.e. "Non-cisgender real world individuals" and "Non-heterosexual real world individuals"?

JDPManjoume ☎  02:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies on both points. With that first point in mind, I will amend Wyngarde's page to remove the fanclub website, and note the rationale on the talk page so that it is clear to any others editing the page why those have been taken off the page. You made a good point re. third-party sourcing from actual individuals - I would've been better placed to say sourcing key information without further independent verification of the accuracy of the statements.


 * Thanks also for the reminder that the thread was at that stage of opinion re. real-world individuals, as I'd forgotten about that. I shall of course leave well alone on that for now.


 * Just as an aside, since it's just come up - please see the talk page on David Burton when you get a chance for why I wished to remove that statement for the moment. It was a matter of who added it, the best way to word it to avoid reader misinterpretation re. licensing, and the question of finding a source for the production actually existing.

JDPManjoume ☎  12:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd noticed Najawin's sandbox just last night, hence my most recent additions to my list. I will probably move a copy of it over there sometime soon once I've cleaned it up a bit more. And yeah, the PoC categories are going to be a complicated situation. I've no doubts about that, but I think it's worth having the conversation to see how much can be untangled.
 * On the Dhawan vs. Delgado thing specifically, that had come to mind actually (as had Tso in the audios) - and I suppose my argument there is going to be akin to the point that this contention is not too dissimilar to the matter re. "first PoC Doctor actor". (Jo Martin, Daniel Anthony, Lenny Henry, Damian Lynch) All of those actors in both cases are, by an academic and scientific standpoint, people of colour. Thus, the approach I'd already be proposing for that would be that their individual pages note who is generally referred to as the first in media reviews and fandoms, whilst also noting the other people of colour who can be applied that title too.
 * This is the approach that is already being taken for a subsection on the Fugitive Doctor's page. If that can point out the technicality that Damian Lynch was briefly playing the Third Doctor as predating Jo Martin as Fugitive Doctor, then I don't see why the technicality of Delgado being hispanic and though not noted at the time, would actually be a person of colour, should throw any particular troubles.
 * As such, then it would be a viable path that operation of the category can include them all. I wasn't really thinking of those folks being an issue. What will be, however, the three major points of complexity that actually stand out to me would be that of Richard E. Grant, Marcus Hearn and of Peter Davison - who are all despite typical perception all mixed-race. Even if ultimately it doesn't result in a category add, it would at least provide something to point at in terms of it being considered & lay a groundwork that might one day be further resolved by someone else. Time will tell, as it always does.

JDPManjoume ☎  15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)