User talk:Scrooge MacDuck

LEGO Dimensions
I had read those threads, though not in a while. What I meant was the fact that nearly every other franchise in LEGO Dimensions (if not all of them) are not set in their respective universes, which inclines me to think that Doctor Who isn't either— but it still could be. There also was this article with a quote from the developer that implies LEGO Gandalf believes he is the Gandalf even though he isn't. But anyways, thinking about it more it's not clear if this even applies to Supergirl Meets E.T., which I think was the point of the change in policy (although I'm not sure where that was, was it lost in the botched forums transition?) Chubby Potato ☎  03:38, October 22, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Please ask around
To be honest I am slightly confused, I didn't bring anything onto this Wikia. I simply linked the Selachian page to the story page that already existed. The information was already on the Selachian page, but neglecting a link. PoolsideJazz ☎  14:57, October 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think that I was correct in my assessment of Winter's View. The story features reference to the Empress of the Needle as well as Looms. Two of the main characters are intended to be Time Lords by the author (described as Chronarchs and later "Lords") and there is also a reference to The Enemy. PoolsideJazz ☎  15:50, October 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * They had the license to use Miranda two stories later, from the same release, so I think it goes without saying that they had a license to reference her earlier. PoolsideJazz ☎  16:08, October 27, 2020 (UTC)

IP Vandal
An IP named 1.52.47.91 has vandalized the Laws of Time article (one edit being racism). Can you please block that IP?

Cheers! -- Jamie248 [  T  •  C  •  E  • 📝 ] 14:59, October 27, 2020 (UTC)

DiS drama
We both left messages on the Scrooge McDuck wikia, (I at least since you said that's where you preferred to be reached for non TARDIS stuff). Najawin ☎  17:47, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * Topical heading, different drama. Looking at the block log around the same time it seems to be a suggestion that User:Tazmin, User:TazminDaytime, and User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 were all the same person. (Not that I'm aware which account violated T:NPA to get Czech involved, or how he made this determination, but that seems to be the claim.) Najawin ☎  23:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown!: The Gift That Keeps on Giving
Your proposal as stated at Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown! sort of threads the needle in a weird way, stating both that we cover it like the Fan Show, while also explicitly stating
 * However, I see no reason not to have a page about it as a "(documentary)".

Whereas the Fan Show has a webcast dab term. And our discussion had morphed into "should a collection of ontological primitives be counted as a documentary", so, fair point that there's some nuance, but I can only say so much in an edit summary, and I felt what I said reflected where the discussion had left off, even if it, again, never really resolved itself. Najawin ☎  20:09, October 29, 2020 (UTC)

SpookyUCP
So, since we're all going to be screaming in agony soon enough, and our forums will once again be in disarray. Also on the chopping block is our beloved Recent Wiki Activity. I wasn't sure who to share this with, whether just an admin or Tangerine/Czech, but I figured I'd pass along a script I saw on community central that seems to reimplement RWA for the update. While it does seem to have bugs, probably can't hurt to try it out. Najawin ☎  01:40, November 1, 2020 (UTC)

Curator timeline reply
Oh, no hard feelings about the ban, mate. In fact, I was just on my way to thank you for alerting me about the plagiarism rule regarding Sandboxes when you did. I could have dug myself into a bigger hole there. I guess the problem was that I have no problem with people editing my own sandboxes hat I didn't register that other users would feel different. Heck, before you stopped me, and when I was getting an "edit high", I was thinking about merging the infomation on your sandbox page to the official Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) page, since it covered the topic so well. Who knows how much trouble I could have gotten in there. As for the ban, well, I'm man enough to do the time after the crime. The important thing is that I learnt my lesson and hopefully won't be a repeat offender.

As for my recent edit on The Curator; I'm unaware of any "timeline-theorising bann[ing] in the main namespace"? I just thought it made more sense to have the Gallifrey Falls No More information closer together, since they'e both "off-screen" affairs. Then I just moved Canaries up on the fly because it was also mostly "off-screen".BananaClownMan ☎  22:36, November 2, 2020 (UTC)

Behind the scenes
Hi, I'm asking this question here as it seems that the general consensus at Talk:Doctor Who: Lockdown! and the previous Lockdown! threads are that those stories shouldn't be on the COVID-19 so it's kinda off-topic to the current line of conversation.

As an admin, could you confirm that a behind-the-scenes section can indeed be created for issues not relating to the Lockdown! debate? I'm specifically thinking of a bunch of Big Finish stories here, of which there is documentation for releases that were both recorded during and delayed because of the pandemic. --Borisashton ☎  16:41, November 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do. --Borisashton ☎  17:10, November 3, 2020 (UTC)

Fanfiction
I'm slightly confused regarding the rules of fanfiction on this site. Earlier today you edited rules on Fanfiction but have since added redlinks to fan material released as part of Doctor Who: Lockdown!. Was this an oversight on your part, or is some fanfiction accepted? PoolsideJazz ☎  20:32, November 7, 2020 (UTC)
 * Just seen your explanation on the talkpage. Thanks! PoolsideJazz ☎  20:38, November 7, 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough
I definitely did not intend it in that manner, but was more making a comment about how the tread has petered out from lack of engagement. (I was well aware that Epsilon had commented, so wasn't being snarky in said manner.) Definitely understand the reading in retrospect though, and will be more careful. Najawin ☎  23:52, November 8, 2020 (UTC)

Cosmic Masque
Do you know if we should cover Cosmic Masque on this site? It is a fanzine which features interviews, reviews and fiction. One story from the first issue features Iris Wildthyme and Panda. PoolsideJazz ☎  15:48, November 9, 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems like this is just part of a collection of fanzines. I could find no individual licensing. So probably out of this Wiki’s scope. PoolsideJazz ☎

Potential vandalism
When you have the time, can you have a chat with User:Bridget Sinclair about their edit history? At the very least they're repeatedly violating T:GTI after an admin told them to stop, and multiple other users have been reverting their edits, since they're constantly replacing pictures of members of LINDA with those same members once part of the Abzorbaloff. User:Cool11guy12 expressed concerns at SOTO's talk page, but I figured that giving you a prod might be faster. Najawin ☎  19:02, November 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your chat didn't seem to work. Najawin ☎  19:58, November 11, 2020 (UTC)

Chat
Can I get you to join me in Special:Chat instead of Disco? Thanks! 19:19: Tue 10 Nov 2020

Forums
Since you and Czech discussed the issue of closing forum threads, did you ever end up rewriting out the closing post for Thread:271132 like you did at User:Scrooge MacDuck/The Lost Closing Post? Currently Category:Non-heterosexual individuals links to the old discussion post which was deleted, so it doesn't help anyone understand the context. (And if not, we're obviously in no rush, it's been this way for over a month, we can wait a bit longer still.) Najawin ☎  20:16, November 10, 2020 (UTC)

DWBIT Dalek Wars
Since the forums are closed!, I'll let you know here that I've compiled a longer/fuller list of pages which should be restored relevant to Thread:264328. PS I'm having two factor authentication issues locking me out of accounts, I'm hoping to fix them when I get home. But I hope you've been well! – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 21:43, November 10, 2020 (UTC)

Uploading a video
Hello. I've never requested the upload of a video before and assumed that the Add New Videos page would allow me to do that. However, I've accidentally uploaded File:Snap! Two Doctors Meet Doctor Who The Two Doctors BBC myself, for which I apologise. -- Saxon (✉️) 16:20, November 15, 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you. I've gone ahead and sought out the video policy so I know what to do next time. -- Saxon (✉️) 16:27, November 15, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Timeline pages
It is true that we do cover stories not considered valid by the wiki on the timelines, but I thought it a pretty straightforward assumption that we wouldn't cover fan fiction, as that just opens up a whole can of worms which would make the timelines practically useless. Danochy ☎  05:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential T:SPOIL concern
So there's been a new video game in the works that I've been monitoring and writing about at User:Najawin/Sandbox 3. Various reports stated that the playable version of the game was going to be released in 2021, but that limited edition content packs would go on sale in October 2020 (not being more specific to avoid spoiler concerns, you can check out the sandbox for the details). This never seemed to come to pass, but I decided to check in on the progress of the game, and see what was going on, and it seems like the packs have been released (see here and here). Due to the unique nature of the contents of the packs, as detailed in the sandbox and the articles I linked to, as skeptical as I am of the entire affair, it might be sufficient to make a page for this now and treat the "content packs" as being the first releases in a series or something similar, putting a spoiler tag on the article. But since this is such a very, very weird thing, and has to do with the specific nature of the game pieces vs game pieces from analogous games (and I hope I'm being clear enough on that without violating the spoiler rule), I figured I would ask. Najawin ☎  07:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you'd like, I can explain my reasoning more as to why this particular thing might merit a page already on, say, community central or the $crooge McDuck wiki (rip Ducktales 2017) so I can avoid the spoiler policy. Najawin ☎  08:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there's been mention of it on doctorwhotv as an "available now" sort of deal, even if the "official release date" comes later. (Again, I can go into more detail on my reasoning on community central if you want). Najawin ☎  06:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In-universe references
Thanks for catching that! – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 01:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Restoration Empire place in timeline
So, although I have not read a lot of the more recent TLV stuff and am working off summaries, here is how I think it could be played:

1. the Restoration Empire is a result of the changes, like Defender of the Daleks claims

2. The Restoration Empire may have came about from the changes (per The Restoration Empire) but is in the proper timeline, given the fact that it is setting up the Time War

I do not want to assume what the proper interpretation is, but the foreshadowing of the Time War means I do not want to just assume its all an alternate universe. Maybe the Tenth Doctor is just wrong in Defender and it is not a paradox, as a pre-War empire would of course have no record of a war they have yet to fight. --Editoronthewiki ☎  18:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that works. We have two “valid” TLV stories left I believe (one being the last short story). I guess we should wait and see what those say.--Editoronthewiki ☎  19:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
42.98.152.51 could use a block when you have the time and their created pages purged. Najawin ☎  03:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Category:Blocked and are spam things they created as well. Najawin  ☎  03:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Hello, there. I just wanted to stop by and wish you the merriest of Christmases, and a Happy New Year. May 2021 bring you the same joy I got from reading your profile page. BananaClownMan ☎  14:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Davros and the Testimony
Ah, that explains it. I was a bit confused for a minute there lol. And don't worry, I know all too well the dangers of night-time edits, so I totally get it. Anyways, thanks for explaining and all the best for the new year :) LauraBatham ☎  00:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Howling
Hi! Can you tell me how I can add a topic to The Howling discussion board? I cann't find a link there that lets me do this. Thank you. Captain Infinity ☎  17:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Navboxes on fiction pages
Hi Scrooge. Happy new year! Sorry to bother you, but needing a moderator and can see you're currently online. Having a bit of trouble with the mini navboxes which appear on pages like Harry Potter, the Hobbit etc. As you may remember, these were originaly set up by User:LegoK9 and have been ammended and added to by users such as myself and User:MrThermomanPreacher. I made a small navbox for "Works by Vincent van Gogh" for Vincent van Gogh and related pages earlier today and User:Epsilon the Eternal has jumped on this and now started changing all the formats of all the navboxes on similar pages (Back to the Future, Agatha Christie etc.), erasing all previous work and causing a series of page format issues. This is most noticable on the Scooby Doo page and the associated template which is starting to break into an edit war. Considering this is erasing the work of multiple previous users, I've requested that Epsilon raise a discussion prior to changing all similar navaboxes, but my request has been denied with Epsilon commenting: "Oh for god sake - CONJECTURAL INFORMATION IS ALLOWED IN NAVBOXES, HENCE WHY THERE IS A CONJECTURE NOTICE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE". As you can understand, there is no requirement for block capitals and I don't appreciate being spoken down to, especially when I myself added the original conjecture notice (more for cases where we know a certain character or element is from a franchise, but this is yet to be stated in an in-universe source). Apologies for the long message, but was hoping you or another moderator might be able to step in and advise. Thanks. 66 Seconds ☎  03:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Margaret Rutherford
Hello Scrooge,

Are you able to rename Edith Sitwell Iris (Iris Fifteen).jpg to Margaret Rutherford Iris (Iris Fifteen).jpg RadMatter ☎  13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I wasn't sure if rename tags were added to image files the same as they were pages, the image files seem a bit complicated to me so I didn't want to mess up anything on the page. Thanks again! RadMatter ☎  13:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Stupid awful fandom drama
So given our discussion at Talk:Christa Mactíre and the awful horrible fandom drama that has caused people to edit certain pages at this wiki, I'm wondering if this is something we should now document, even if it doesn't technically meet the standards you laid out at said talk page. (Please dear lord say no, I do not want us to cover this and other such things.) Najawin ☎  22:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, my thought is that it was close enough to the Roberts issue to actually ask an admin. I do not want to touch it with a ten foot pole unless we have to. Najawin ☎  22:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that Arcbeatle Press have announced that they will no longer be working with him, is it worth being mentioned? I wouldn't say it needs to be covered in depth, but it's certainly a little more than stupid awful drama. -- Saxon (✉️) 23:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is Arcbeatle's Tweet on the Sheffirof Steel thing not worthy of being on his page, the same as Gareth Roberts has his debacle on his? I understand where you're coming from but at least to me it seems like a very similar situation. -- Saxon (✉️) 23:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I won't push it any further if only because editing on my phone is a pain. I don't see how it would be libellous to say that Arcbeatle have done what they have due to the allegations - that being the operative word. We obviously shouldn't weigh in and say that they're anything more than that. -- Saxon (✉️) 00:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. That sounds sensible. -- Saxon (✉️) 00:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz Shaw
If you could either lock the page or block 45.41.134.186, they've been removing some EU stuff repeatedly. Najawin ☎  22:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz Shaw edit war
Hi. Could you deal with the anonymous users deleting all of the P.R.O.B.E. material from Liz Shaw? Of variable quality they may be but it obviously deserves to be here. -- Saxon (✉️) 22:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Novelisations as additional appearances
Hello. It was my understanding that if the subject of an article appears in a TV story and its novelisation, the novelisation is not added as a separate appearance in its infobox. Episilon seems to agree, specifically on the matter of Walker General Hospital. Could you help reach a resolution? -- Saxon (✉️) 17:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * But doesn't novelisations being counted as a "lesser appearance" qualify a T:NPOV violation? I don't see most of the stories in Category:Adaptations being treated as lesser. Epsilon the Eternal ☎  17:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Additionally, given that policy is that first names from novelisations are not to be used for article titles, I wonder if you could comment on the pointlessness of writing things like this - Curtis's name is said to be Shelly" - when, according to policy, the page will remain at Curtis (Doctor Who). Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Tis not pointless though, When one hovers their cursor over the link, they'll see the full name. And the more we use the characters full names, the more they'll be known to the more casual fans, like how Polly Wright's surname had never been used on television, but it's synonymous from the forename. Epsilon the Eternal ☎  17:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * But why not have it link to the page's actual address, e.g. Curtis (Doctor Who), whilst having the text read Shelly Curtis? That's how it's done elsewhere on the wiki. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then the redirect is pointless, and we should delete all the redirects from the Wiki, as pretty much most of them fall under your proposal. Epsilon the Eternal ☎  18:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * At least on the appearance matter, the relevant clarification I recieved from Czech after that thread is at User talk:Borisashton. Borisashton ☎  18:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * But that's applicable to most of the stories in category:Adaptations. And his rationale is an endorsement of assumption, which can be considered as speculation, which isn't allowed on this Wiki. Epsilon  📯 📂 19:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ...and if we are to remove novelisations from infoboxes, then it'd be justifiable to remove AUDIO: The Daleks from Pursuer-Dalek, for example. Epsilon  📯 📂 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Both of these policies are completely flawed in my opinion.

Regardless whether a character is in both the TV story or the novelisation, why do we favour the TV story? As User:Epsilon the Eternal correctly stated this is a violation of T:NPOV. We should not be elevating one source over another.

As for the naming convention, one of the main examples for not using a name given in a novelisation was Odessa Smith which has since been disregarded (and there are many other examples). I have no idea why we wouldn't use names given in additional stories, again it is a violation of T:NPOV to favour the TV stories over their novelisations.

While this may not be possible, I suggest suspending both of these T:NPOV-violating policies actively immediately - and we could later revisit them when forums reopen? RadMatter ☎  19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I struggle to see how we could get from a quote like this;

"Television is not the most important source of information on this wiki. That which is said in a short story in Doctor Who Annual 1967 is just as valid as the latest episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who."

- T:NPOV


 * To suddenly refusing to include novelisations in a character's infobox if the television story is already present, and refusing to update character names - such as; Petronella Osgood's sister to Nova Osgood (especially because Nova first appeared in For the Girl Who Has Everything (short story) and was mention-only prior to that). RadMatter ☎  19:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh dear lord, not this again. Look. Many of us agree that a change should be made. And Talk:Petronella Osgood's sister discusses just this. But there was an actual ruling here that says we can't do what we want to do. I have set up a sandbox that lists different threads different people can coordinate on making when the forums return, that myself and Epsilon have been using. As you can see, both of us put reopening Thread:232143 there. But until then the name issue is moot. Najawin ☎  19:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That ruling goes against policy and has already been disregarded in many instances. It is outdated and damaging. We should not have to wait however long it is until the forums return to terminate an unfit former policy. RadMatter ☎  19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * And to be fair Najawin, I wasn't discussing the naming of those pages; I'm in full knowledge that we need a forum thread to properly get this T:NPOV-violating policy removed. I was discussing a related issue, where only prose adaptations of stories are being treated a "lesser" sources in infoboxes. It was RadMatter who brought up the issue of the page names, and to be fair, I don't blame him. CzechOut's decision is highly derivative, and makes no bloody sense in such a time where T:NPOV exists.
 * And don't blame us Najawin, blame CzechOut - he is the one who caused this, do not forget that. Epsilon  📯 📂 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that Scrooge was able to lift the rules regarding fan fiction provisionally to allow the Fan Gallery stories to be deemed valid on this site, I see no harm in asking whether he could provisionally suspend a policy-violating rule (that has already been disregarded in many instances) so that we are not left in limbo until the forums return. RadMatter ☎  19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Epsilon, I realize you're aware. I'm addressing the others. Najawin ☎  20:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To be fair RadMatter, Scrooge didn't lift any rules. And those stories weren't valid, they were invalid. They weren't originally known to be fanfic, and upon that revelation, he promptly removed the stories from the Wiki.
 * And admins also lack the ability to undermine other admins, so the naming issue will have to remain until CzechOut finally restores the forums. Epsilon  📯 📂 20:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Those stories were known to be fanfiction from the start. RadMatter ☎  20:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No they weren't. The website has now been revised, so it's hard to tell. Epsilon  📯 📂 20:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * They were known to be fan creations from the start, and while I did argue that they violated T:NO FANFIC, Scrooge felt that Lockdown had somehow got some form of license for them to be hosted. When he was made aware that was not the case, the ruling was reversed. Najawin ☎  20:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If fanfic is licensed, then it's really not fanfic is it? Or are we going to start questioning The Best-Laid Plans because it's written by a fan? Epsilon  📯 📂 20:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Nah, we should get rid of Blink (TV story). Steven Moffat is too much of a fan to be a Doctor Who writer. Najawin ☎  20:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, all. Might I possibly get a word in edgewise on my own talk page? Which isn't supposed to be a talk page for general discussion between users, you do realise… But I suppose a lack of Forum is a lack of Forum. Instead of spreading my reply thin I'll post it here, but please don't make a habit of this, it's highly regular.


 * Najawin is correct in his recollection of the Fan Gallery case — it was known that they were "fanfiction" in the sense of "fan-submitted fiction", but so's anything from the Big Finish Paul Spragg Contest; what was not clear was whether it was licensed. See T:NO FANFIC, which explains what we mean when we say "no fanfic". I bent no rule, but merely made a decision considering what our default assumption would be. This assumption was later contradicted by new emerging facts, and accordingly we moved the Fan Gallery stuff to its own Wiki, to accommodate its unique "official"-yet-unlicensed status. There was never any question of allowing it to remain on the Wiki if it was unlicensed.


 * By the same token, I am indeed not in any way allowed to unilaterally reverse User:CzechOut's old decision regarding page names; a forum thread would indeed be needed. Whether novelisations belong in the |appearances= field is perhaps a different question, in that this was never, to my knowledge, arrived at after a specific community discussion; but even then, I would need the argument of other admins before making even that decision, as it would still be a far-reaching change on the Wiki. We can review this if we still have no Forum in a month (maybe find a talk page to act as an ad hoc "thread"?), but in the meantime, I don't want to do anything rash on that front either.


 * Sorry if this is disappointing to any of you, but the rules are the rules. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And a resolution for the pipeswitching I've been applying to certain pages? Epsilon  📯 📂 22:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A Lady Doctor? short story
Hello Scrooge,

I was wondering if you could tell me if a page for A Lady Doctor? would be allowed on this site? Naturally it would be invalid, as Obverse Books doesn't have rights to use the 13th Doctor. However, this is a licensed appearance of Iris Wildthyme released by an official source so could have an invalid page. RadMatter ☎  01:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential vandalism
Would you be able to take a look at User:ArnoldTheRedeemer's edit history. He has previously been banned for adding nonsense to pages, and has now started adding false information to Iris Wildthyme's page. RadMatter ☎  00:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Master talk page
I think there has been a misunderstanding. I was not questioning why the opposition has the burden of proof on the Master's talk page, in fact I was unaware of that instruction (I must have missed it), I was merely pointing out what context I needed to understand both sides of the issue. I admit that I am confused as to the reasoning behind the burden of proof decision, but I expect that will become clearer the more I know of the situation. Anyways thank you for giving me some context and I am quite happy to wait for quotes from the novel (I may even try my local second hand bookstore - which I think has some novelisations - so I can see for myself, so don't feel you need to rush.) LauraBatham ☎  01:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's not like those flame wars in regards to the Master/War Chief issue were ever between registered users. It was always a particular IP user who was involved in one side or another. If we just ignored them I don't think changing the starting point would matter. Najawin ☎  01:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Scrooge, since we've had two users who've expressed interest in contributing but don't feel like inclusion is the default, don't think that the sections in question actually lead us to draw the conclusion (though allow us to if we wish), but are forbidden to proceed down this line of discussion due to how you set up the debate. Since the time between Borisashton presenting the evidence and you deciding it was so conclusive as to be the default was one day, and the main discussion we're having now didn't start until you posted a message in discussions a week later, with multiple users just not seeing this, would you deem it reasonable if, say, SOTO agreed that the evidence was inconclusive to allow that line of discussion to move forward? Not to tie your hands or immediately shift the burden of proof, but merely to allow people to discuss whether or not it's actually conclusive. Najawin ☎  17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully understand what you're saying, and I wholeheartedly agree that such a discussion wouldn't necessarily change the default stance being inclusion. Rather, it would give users who didn't have a chance to comment in that <=24 hour window a chance to weigh in and actually express their views as to why they don't feel the quote is particularly strong. I've always understood the idea of when argument X places the burden of proof on the defense the defense being perfectly allowed to undermine argument X. (Not that with my background I think very highly of the term "burden of proof" anyhow. But that's a digression for another day.) Does that attempt to undermine X necessarily succeed? Of course not. And even if it does succeed it might still not save the day for the defense. But I've never seen the idea where the argument put forward by the affirmative is unimpeachable. I'm merely suggesting that if SOTO also finds it a little inconclusive we allow other people to actually interrogate the original argument, obviously with the caveat that it could come to nothing, as all arguments can come to nothing. The burden of proof is still on the defense, insofar as the affirmative has put forward an argument and the defense is trying to undermine it, the defense is just now allowed to actually address the original argument made. Najawin ☎  19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Scrooge. I just saw you comments on Najawin's talk page and am now thinking that I have misunderstood the "burden off proof thing" and what points we are allowed to make. If I were to put on the Master's talk page my interpretation of of the "He was luckier than I" quote, would that be acceptable? LauraBatham ☎  00:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the Moment/weapon discussion and unfortunately I can't due to the forum situation, but I will put my interpretation on the talk page anyway and I apologise in advance if it seems like I am repeating the precedent. LauraBatham ☎  01:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
User:Casaemmnuel could use a block whenever, not sure if it's imperative, I reverted their edits and Shambala deleted the page they made. Najawin ☎  04:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible serial spammer IP address
I have noticed a series of IPs on this wiki exhibiting suspiciously similar behaviour that leads me to believe we may be dealing either with a single serial spammer or a network of intentional copycat vandals. The MO I have observed is to create utterly nonsensical spam pages, often consisting of a haphazard jumble of templates, disjointed ramblings, or similarly not-remotely-encyclopaedic stuff, and typically taking the form of duplicates of existing valid maintenance pages Some examples include Campfire, //www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p048h1bz, Category:Candidates for deletion, Template:Deletetemplate, Template:Stubtemplate, Category:Blocked, and Template:Blocked, amongst many others. While most of these pages are simply outright nonsense, I have also observed the occasional one that is outright offensive, incorporating vulgarities or even offensive slurs. Now, I do wish to make clear here that I cannot be sure about this, but I do think it seems at least suspect. Just look at the deletion history for some of those pages I linked and you'll see how many times just those pages have been recreated. I don't know who this person is or what their motivation is for such a bizarre form of spam/vandalism (disdain for the current era, perhaps? the casting of a woman as the doctor certainly seems to have attracted quite a bit of trolling. I mean, I don't like the current era either but, like, it's not like it'd be any better or worse if Jodie Whittaker were a man so I don't see the point in blaming it on her gender. But I digress.), but they should probably be dealt with if possible (I've never admined a wiki so I don't know if it would be possible to fix this, but I think I should at least make it known whichever way) NightmareofEden ☎  12:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Year pages
As I've already stated on the talk page for 1966 (releases), as most of the year pages are at the moment hard to naviagate, I think that it is a good idea to add subheadings for each of the months. There doesn't seem to be anything in the manual of style banning this, but seeing as I made a mistake last time I did something big, I thought it best to ask. I've applied the changes which I plan to implement to 1966 (releases).CharlieCon ☎  11:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)