User talk:SOTO

To save you the trouble, just call me SOTO. Also, please sign your messages. Thanks.

× SmallerOnTheOutside  (☎/ ✍ / ↯ ) If you've come here to request a simple, uncontroversial page move, please consider using instead. This puts all rename requests into a neat little chart that all admin can see and work on.

Audio!!
Would you tell me why you dab the story Revenge of the Nestene as a short story? It's clearly an audio. --DCLM ☎  21:44, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
Could you please do something about User:Connorguy and User:DoneNothingWrong. They continuously insert false information based on speculation and they are consistently edit warring as a result. I have tried multiple times now to warn them, but they continue the tirade. The "speculation" was originally inserted by User:Cynical Classicist. --DCLM ☎  22:38, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not originally post the information. Someone else did, and once you removed it another user added it back. I, a third user, believed that the information was valid enough to be on the page (and since then a fourth user has also contributed). This puts you at odds with several members - if you felt that the information was wrong / false you should have started a discussion on the talk page (like I suggested). However, you continued to repeatedly remove the information despite being asked to stop. Connorguy ☎  22:43, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The only 3 users who consistently inserted it were all new members unfamiliar with a large portion of how this wiki works; that's you, DoneNothingWrong and Cynical Classicist. The only other user, who apparently don't realize this is pure speculation (and therefore not allowed), was User:NateBumber, who also simply expanded upon this. Also you apparently didn't read my comment above, which even said who the original "creator" of the content was. I'm not the one supposed to start up a discussion on whether this shouldn't be there. It's you people who need to start a discussion on whether it SHOULD be there. -DCLM ☎  22:50, March 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a new member. Unfortunately I have lost the credentials to my original account, although I haven't been interested in the show until the recent Russel T. Davies material was released - so recreated today. I am familiar with "a large portion of how this wiki works". There's a big difference between "speculation" and heavy "implication". Connorguy ☎  22:53, March 26, 2020 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to comment, but since Danniesen has name-dropped me above, I feel obligated to add that I very strongly dispute his characterisation of Special:Diff/2865071 as "false information based on speculation". The edit had two halves: a short but serviceable summary of the story (which I was particularly happy to see, since so many of our pages lack summaries); and a "Behind the scenes" note about the connection to Boris Johnson. While Boris' name is not explicitly given in text (hence why Cynical Classicist correctly placed it in a real-world "Behind the scenes" section rather than an in-universe section like "References", where discussion of prominent off-site speculation is absolutely allowed), with how the story is written, Russell T Davies' intention is very clear, especially considering his previous comments concerning Johnson as a political figure. This has been noticed by countless commentators on Twitter, GallifreyBase, Reddit, and every other Doctor Who community the sun touches, so it would be completely negligent of our wiki to not at least mention it.


 * When Danniesen reverted Classical Cynicist's edit and dismissed it as "false info" -- and then when he did the same thing another 3 times -- he removed not just the bit about Boris but also the very valuable, and by no means "false", story summary. This was done so repeatedly and so quickly that no one even noticed MystExplorer dodging in and adding the same content in the "Notes" section! I have since tried to do my part in diffusing the edit war by re-adding the summary and combining the two explanations of the Boris link, complete with a source from the RadioTimes; but I completely sympathize with the frustration of Connorguy and DoneNothingWrong in this scenario. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 00:07, March 27, 2020 (UTC)


 * Funny how some speculative content is allowed while other speculative content isn't. (by the way, nothing wrong with the story summary, that was fine). Just saying. --DCLM ☎  09:04, March 27, 2020 (UTC)


 * If there was nothing wrong with the story summary, why did you remove it four times and describe the edit (in this section header) as vandalism? I think how the wiki treats speculation makes perfect sense: for an illustrative example, see The Woman (The End of Time). We do not speculate on her identity in the in-universe portion of the page, but in the real-world “behind the scenes” section, we freely discuss potential identities. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 13:07, March 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't see the summary. I only saw the speculation. Also, if speculation is allowed in BTS sections, please tell me why speculation in BTS sections have consistently been removed in the past. This is exactly like sticking out some rules that everyone must follow, then someone else comes along and go against these rules, and everyone praises that, leaving the one actually following said rules feeling immensely dumb. --DCLM ☎  13:14, March 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said, there's a difference between speculation and heavy implication. If only one user was speculating something, with no real evidence to back it up, then of course it would not be allowed. However, in this instance the wording is specific enough to be universally agreed as to who it was referencing (just look at the comments on the audio version of the story on YouTube - half the comments are about Boris Johnson) then it should be. Xx-connor-xX ☎  13:18, March 27, 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding past removals, maybe it’s because of the lack of a source/citation for the speculation? Idk, give me some examples of what you’re talking about. I’m not an admin but I’ll go to bat for you if something was improperly removed. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 13:21, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

Time War volumes
I've just moved the The Eighth Doctor: Time War volumes to their new titles, but upon checking Special:WhatLinksHere, I've... decided that maybe it's best to ask SV7 a bit of help - I'm sure they'll have more fun moving the links than I would :p So, when you have the time, could you run the bot to change: (and, as I said in Talk:The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Three I'm on the opinion that only volumes 1 and 2 should keep the old names as redirects; I've only kept the volume 3 as a redirect for now until we get the links done) - thought do let me know if you disagree. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 23:11, April 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume One to The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume One
 * The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Two to The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Two
 * The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Three to The Eighth Doctor: Time War: Volume Three
 * Oh I didn't realise that hadn't "ripple-effected" yet; usually the links change fairly quickly. Yeah, the changing on the marketing was unusual, but everyone I saw assumed they did it to match the Gallifrey: Time War releases (after all, they incorporated its logo) - and now we get all 8TW sets with the Whittaker-era logo, so that's two wins. But anyway, thanks for doing the changes (and thank SV7 as well). OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:01, April 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's do the Time War again: Category:The Eighth Doctor: The Time War and it's subcategories were never changed from  to   (sans the The) - so if SV7 still has some spare batteries... OncomingStorm12th (talk) 16:07, April 4, 2020 (UTC)