User talk:Aw21212121

Welcome to the  Thanks for your recent 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 Fandom 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 use another form of English, 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

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 an admin.

Re: Series 14 (Doctor Who)
Yes. It's source is a combination of the sources given for the episodes known about so far, festive special and the fact that the finale is a 2-parter. Of course, further sources may come along which may indicate that this number is wrong but, to our current knowledge, it is correct and reflects the state of the article. Bongo50  ☎  06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:Bongolium500 So, it's assumed knowledge, and not anything reliably sourced? Can you kindly cite the policy that supports assumptions? Thanks. Aw21212121 ☎  06:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:Bongolium500 I see you have been active since, and are unable to supply and policy or source to support the content. In that case, it will be tagged as unsourced. Aw21212121 ☎  01:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I note again that malicious compliance is an express violation of T:POINT. Najawin ☎  02:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also it should be noted that your reply to Bongolium500 has been on your own talk page… which isn’t guaranteed to be seen by anyone. In theory you could be leaving 50 replies here that no one would see, as you can only notify a person by replying on THEIR talk page. Danniesen ☎  07:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry about not getting back to you sooner. I did see the message, but I wasn't able to reply at that time and then forgot about it. My fault. The story count is not assumed knowledge. It is our current knowledge. There is, of course, the assumption that the current knowlege won't change, but this doesn't make the knowlege assumed. If it did, then frankly everything on the page would count as assumed. We constantly assume that our sources are correct and true, but this doesn't make the knowlege they contain assumed. Hence, knowlege being correct as far as our current reliable sources say is not the same as knowlege being assumed. In this case, the sources for the fact in question are the sources providing our current knowlege of the episodes. Hence, for the wiki's purposes, this information is reliably sourced and not assumed. Bongo50   ☎  19:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Danniesen, just like article talk pages, discussions should be held in one central location, instead of a post at their talk page, a post at mine, theirs, mine, theirs, etc. How does it make sense to do it any other way? Aw21212121 ☎  07:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Bongolium500, everything in the article is reliably sourced, that's why everything is included. As in, we have found a cite, and used that to support the content. If a cite explicitly says "Actor X did this", we report "Actor X did this". We have no cite stating 8 stories. Aw21212121 ☎  07:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Except that you don't get notifications in that sense. Talk pages are for talking to users as this wiki uses them. Similarly, while it's true that everything is currently citable to specific magazines or websites, you know as well as I that you were blocked for insisting that this be true previously. Logical entailment from other sources is acceptable if it can be done. (I make no comment on the specifics, just note that you're not being accurate here.) Najawin ☎  07:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussions on article talk pages are not the same as discussions on user talk pages. All the articles on the wiki each have one talk page. User talk pages are meant to be back and forth on two talk pages, that’s just how wikis work. Danniesen ☎  09:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As Danniesen says, what we have is logical entailment from our other sources that there are 8 stories. We can look at those sources, do some counting, and derive that there are 8 stories currently known about. Bongo50   ☎  12:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, we do not have a source stating that the finale is the only two-part story of the series. Got it. Cheers. :) Aw21212121 ☎  01:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Block
Hello. You'be been blocked for your continued edit-warring of Series 14 (Doctor Who); please avail yourself to the resources on Help:I'm blocked on how to proceed.

One has to hope that this does not come as much of a surprise to you given your prior one-day block for the same offence in the same case. Please understand that, regardless of how strongly you feel about the facts of the case, your behaviour has been nothing short of disruptive. Our policy on edit wars isn't just "don't edit-war": it is called "edit wars are good for absolutely nothing". This is what your behaviour has achieved here: nothing. You cannot single-handedly fight a tide of consensus. Either make your case and convince people, or accept that you lose this one. You cannot keep reverting people's edits like this, time after time — and certainly not while blithely claiming that they're wrong or false in the edit summary, as though it is the other editors who are at fault. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)