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)

Re: Phoenix Court Iris / Edith Sitwell Iris
Hey Scrooge,

While I know that these incarnations are *not* their lookalikes, they are often described to be pretty similar to them. Hence, Brenda Soobie often being depicted as wearing clothes that Shirley Bassey has appeared in.

With the Edith Sitwell incarnation they are often referred to as being "regal" or a "dame", but the lesbian novelist was described as none of these things in Hospitality and others indicated how rubbish she was - which doesn't fit with the previous descriptions of Edith (at least from my point of view). Another thing is that the characters in Hospitality were mostly women-study feminists (going by the name of "Lesbian Avengers") so for none of them to recognise the lesbian novelist as looking like Edith Sitwell would be odd if this incarnation was meant to be her. RadMatter ☎  15:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you mind if I ask which stories and / or other reasoning has led to your thoughts that the Edith Sitwell incarnation / lesbian novelist incarnation may occupy the same place as the first incarnation of Iris' timeline?


 * Has the lesbian novelist from Phoenix Court ever been identified as the first incarnation? RadMatter ☎  15:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
If you could protect Antonio Amaral and block the relevant IP that would be appreciated. Najawin ☎  21:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no, don't protect it; I'm planning on a significant edit on it, as I've been talking to Antonio of Twitter about proper in-universe page. Epsilon</tt>  📯 📂 21:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the more recent vandalism, as I said on your other talk page (I know there have been issues seeing it in the past, so I'm reiterating here), if it's possible to do a full purge of their username and edits like happened on the 6th of September on Thirteenth Doctor, that's probably the best option. Well, after they stop making accounts. I don't know what level of perms you need to do that though, it was Czech that did that last time. Najawin ☎  20:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ulysses
Okay, I (rather painstakingly) went through and made sure every line of The Doctor's father, Ulysses, and Daniel Joyce is represented in User:NateBumber/Sandbox/Ulysses. Ready for merger! And more generally, thank you so much for your diligent administration of this wiki. Having a rename or merge discussion open and closed without a three-month (or -year) wait has been a wonderful change of pace. – n8 (☎) 16:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a little reminder ping here - no real rush, but something just feels wrong about one of my sandbox pages being listed in Category:Individual Time Lords etc... – n8 (☎) 16:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Enter Wildthyme" plot summary
Plot summaries have never been to regurgitate every single word from a book. The plot of Enter Wildthyme is far too long... there is no necessary need to include "a dog barked at Magda" when it had absolutely nothing to do with the plot. I had removed over 10 thousand words (and wasn't even halfway done) and yet still kept every single necessary detail that impacted the plot / had any relevance to the overall story. RadMatter ☎  14:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Have you never heard of quality over quantity?


 * The existing plot did summarise every single plot point, but in my opinion there was still a lot of unnecessary detail. All I did was shorten this - but I kept every single necessary detail. If you were able to provide evidence of one necessary detail / piece of information I removed, I would understand your point of view. But you will not be able to do this as I removed no necessary detail, just shorted it so that it was more accessible. In fact I added far much more information which was missing (such as the name of the original crewmember, Phelps, and Barbra's Memory crystal which was the whole reason that they were able to get to Valcea in the first place!). RadMatter ☎  15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There is also evidence of plots being challenged in the past by admins due to being overlong. Too long, like this, and they become inaccessible to the average reader. RadMatter ☎  15:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to invite another admin into this discussion, later as I'm unable to right now, because I think you are completely mistaken. Overlong plots like this one are inaccessible and there are multiple examples of admins in the past challenging this. The fact that you cannot provide one piece of information that I remove which was necessary to the plot, yet I can provide several examples where I expanded upon the information, proves that you were wrong to step in. RadMatter ☎  15:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please provide an example of something which was lost...


 * Readers aren't "lazy" because they want a summary of the plot but are instead met with "a dog barked at Magda", which had absolutely no relevance to the plot. And Fallen Angels's edit history sees an admin challenge a plot as it is "overlong". RadMatter ☎  15:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I absolutely do feel like another admin's involvement is necessary, but don't believe it can wait until Forums return.


 * From my point of view you seem to involve yourself in every discussion, even when it is doubtful that you have any knowledge of the story yourself. Not trying to suggest which stories you have / haven't read, but there have been several times that you have stated something that I (as someone who has read the stories think sounds ludicrous) and then were unable to back it up.


 * As for the plot summaries, it is a summary of the plot. If something occurs that does not impact the plot it should not be mentioned, it is really as simple as that. Why mention a dog barking? When it a) does not impact the plot and b) turns out not to have even been a dog barking but another noise altogether! RadMatter ☎  15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, your latest comment on my talkpage only further strengthens my concerns that you have no knowledge of the stories you are involving yourself in (once again, not accusing you of this but just raising a concern). You state that you may have thought differently had I added Dog (Enter Wildthyme when the dog didn't even exist, it was a completely different sound altogether! RadMatter ☎  15:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Scrooge,

I just wanted to let you know (as I'm sure you would probably see yourself) that I have contacted another admin about this situation. I did not want this action to seem sly, but I truly feel like another pair of eyes has to take a look at the situation as I believe it is your edits that are counter productive to the Wikia in this instance.

It boggles my mind how you can acknowledge that the section is supposed to be a "plot summary" but then make statements like; "Brevity is only the goal for biographies of recurring characters" and "plot summaries on story pages should be as detailed as possible". The literal definition of 'summary' is "a brief statement or account of the main points of something" and "not including needless details or formalities; brief". RadMatter ☎  23:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The "plot" section has always been for a summary of the plot (and you have been acknowledging this since I brought up the fact that a summary is supposed to be brief). For the most part there is nothing subjective about what impacts the plot; a conversation about the weather or talk about a favourite band, etc, does not impact the plot. However, Memory Crystals that actually lead the group to one of the main settings do impact the plot. However, the current summary more often favours the former.


 * Quoting what I wrote on @Shambala108's page, what is wrong with the following simplification?


 * That evening, at the poetry class, Simon decides not to tell Kelly that the jar had been stolen. Outside, a Routemaster 22 had been carelessly parked, much to Simon's displeasure. Kelly believes that the bus belonged to a bunch of new agers, and she expresses worry over the "famous poet", Antony Marvelle, hosting the bulk of the the night's meeting.


 * As the congregation of people begins clear at around midnight, a drunken Iris Wildthyme shows up, mouthing off at anything and everything. As time passes, Simon gets acquainted with Iris, and Kelly gets seduced by Marvelle's mesmerising ability Simon knows that they are getting intimate with each other, which he is very uncomfortable with. This drives him to confront Marvelle about him stealing the jar, which Marvelle denies, and Kelly believes that Simon is drunk.


 * After his failed confrontation, he goes back to Iris, and she voices her suspicions about Marvelle. They get drunk together, and later on Simon walks Iris back to her bus, and despite trying to get her not to drive it, she does, and the bus subsequently dematerialises.''

All of the above became this;


 * Simon attends a poetry reading in support of his friend Kelly, but when Marvelle is revealed as one of the guests he confronts him over the theft but Marvelle denies all knowledge. Iris Wildthyme comforts Simon and voices her own suspicions about Marvelle. The pair get drunk together, but as Simon returns Iris to her bus he is shocked to witness it dematerialise.

Using Epsilon's outline I have able to simplified tweleve lines into four and have lost absolutely nothing. This is all I did throughout. People want to read the plot summary sections to find out the key plot points, if they wanted to read the entire book they would simply buy it. RadMatter ☎  23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Chiming in on this, I will say that as someone that gives incredibly detailed plot summaries I do at times worry that I step over the line as to what would be considered fair use vs plagiarism. But the comparison about Enter Wildthyme in particular seems misplaced, it's shorter than my Of the City of the Saved... summary while the original work has more pages than Of the City. The summary doesn't seem that bad. Najawin ☎  23:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

T:NPA warning
You cannot compare "Poppycock" and "Waffle".

One is an insult, the other is an actual word which means "speak or write at length in a vague or trivial manner"... I'm not sure how this could ever be considered a T:NPA? It is exactly what I was complaining about, and was clearly not meant to insult as I have directly told @Epsilon that I appreciated his outline of the text but found it long-winded. RadMatter ☎  23:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "Long-winded waffle" is exactly what I was complaining about. Both of the meanings for these words are literally my entire argument. As I have said, I have already contacted Epsilon to show appreciation for the outline and work he put into the page - but I find it far too long. I still cannot fathom how this can be turned into a personal attack. RadMatter ☎  23:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I still don't believe "long-winded waffle" is anywhere near aggressive. That was my entire complaint; "long-winded" = continuing at tedious length / "waffle" = speak or write at length in a vague or trivial manner. This line summed up my complaints, and was not intended to insult the person who I had praised earlier for the same thing. However, I'm not going to continue dragging this out.


 * Are you able to comment on how you keep calling the section a "Plot Summary" yet do not acknowledge that a summary is supposed to be brief. I am not interested how long a plot section is, but if the information of five paragraphs can be summed up into one that should be a plus! RadMatter ☎  23:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

NightmareofEden‎
While I believe me, yourself and Epsilon are all involved in a peaceful dispute, I would like you to review NightmareofEden's recent comment on my talkpage. I thought that this comment was completely unnecessary. I do not appreciate a user who is not an admin telling me to stop when I am raising a valid concern, nor do I appreciate my seeking another admin's input as me needing to "to run to another admin when you don't get the answer you want". RadMatter ☎  23:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am finding your ruling to be incredibly biased here, Scrooge. There is obvious intent behind accusing someone of running to another admin when they don't get their own way. RadMatter ☎  23:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

RE: Comment at RadMatter's talk page
Ah OK, sorry about that. I'm feeling a bit stressed today for unrelated reasons and, while I wasn't attempting to "take it out" on anyone, rereading what I wrote yeah you're right that does come across as rather aggressive. Sorry. NightmareofEden ☎  23:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Observer Effect
Right, so it's subtly different insofar as not every mind causes collapse - you treat things not from the homeworld as part of the quantum system. I didn't feel like this effected the underlying interpretation that much. Najawin ☎  18:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Obverse Sextet
Could I tempt your eye over to Talk:The Rise & Fall of Señor 105 (novel)? Would be nice to get an admin statement about the validity of Obverse Sextet as a whole before I put too much effort into each of the parts (in particular, Vanishing Tales of the City doesn't make much sense without The Rise & Fall of Señor 105). – n8 (☎) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! – n8 (☎) 17:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Twitter comments
Hello Scrooge,

Some potential slander on Twitter has come to my attention. I do not appreciate you trying to push a narrative that anyone has been attempting to have Antonio Amaral's page "taken down". This is a complete mischaracterization of the events. Not a single person has advocated for the page's removal. RadMatter ☎  04:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I advocate for the page's removal. – n8 (☎) 04:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to the contrary of anything I have said. You had not voiced your opinion (or so I believe) at the time these comments were made. RadMatter ☎  05:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Representative
Hi there! My name is Chris, and I will now be your Wiki Representative for this wiki. As before, I'm here to help the community and be a liaison to full-time Fandom staff. If you ever have a question or issue relating to the wiki, editing, etc., please contact me moving forward and I will do my best to assist you.

If you want to add me on Discord I'm at Spongebob456#7402 which is an easy way to reach me - wiki message wall works too! I’m looking forward to working with you! :) --Spongebob456 talk 14:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The Other Side of the World
Hello Scrooge,

As you were the one to create a page for Golden Age I thought that you would be the correct person to run Burton's other work by in this case 2010's The Other Side of the World. While I have little knowledge about Burton's off-shoots of the Faction Paradox universe, this seems like it deserves a page here. RadMatter ☎  01:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also the book The Empty Days which supposedly documents the history of Against Nature and includes material from The Other Side of the World. RadMatter ☎  01:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean, TOSotW literally mentions Faction Paradox in the summary on Goodreads. The issue is, I can't find the book. Someone seems to have given it stars, so presumably it existed at one point, but unlike Smoking Mirror which is still being published this doesn't seem to be something you can find anymore. TED seems to suggest, given the description on Goodreads, that TOSotW would merit coverage on here similar to Smoking Mirror, in that it was a planned book that was canceled because of issues with Random Static (hell, we might actually have enough FP books that have fallen through at this point to make a sub category specifically for that, not that all are named). But I would have to read TED just to make sure. I think at this point establishing whether TOSotW actually ever existed in published form is the most important thing. ("Bring in temporary forums" he cries) As that will determine a lot of how we proceed for the rest. Najawin ☎  02:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It literally does not show up on his user profile on Lulu; that is some next level bizarre. Literally the first place I looked. I can only speculate as to why. Najawin ☎  02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't own it, but that's what I've summarized from the Goodreads summary of The Empty Days as well. I'm not sure that we'd be best served by acquiring a copy of TOSotW though, I think TED for the relevant evidence might be more helpful. Najawin ☎  16:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I might eventually? But priorities, while I enjoy Against Nature I still haven't read Smoking Mirror, for instance. Getting an unpublished earlier draft copy of a work is a nice little thing to have, but it's not innately something I want to rush out and get if I can get it at my leisure. As for the dirty laundry concern, it's more that under this reading TOSotW just is Against Nature, there never was an unproduced novel, just earlier drafts, and we're just stirring up drama by including a separate page for TOSotW. TOSotW then gets perhaps a mention here and there in BTS sections but that's the extent of it. Najawin ☎  17:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

One thing you might want to pass along to the wiki representative
It seems everyone is having issues with their userpages if you haven't noticed. It seems we can't see anyone else's, but can see our own, and if we log out our own no longer works either. Not sure if this is a TARDIS issue or a FANDOM issue. Nate's noticed it as well. So I'm just passing it along. Najawin ☎  03:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (I honestly don't know procedure here, and while I did see they had a user page I felt it would be rude to presume.) Najawin ☎  03:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussions use
Hey :) With respect to the thread about the Master in Discussions, I was just answering a question that seemed to be about the history of why things had happened on the wiki. I really didn't intend to open a separate venue for binding conversations on the wiki. Toward that end, I've deleted (but locally saved) your detailed response.

I apologise if my langauge confused you. Basically, I wasn't expecting someone to take the word "now" quite so literally and to launch into a full-scale forum-like response. In my mind, the Discussions platform is to be used as Fandom has generally intended: light conversation and announcements.

So let's please hold discussion of something as fudnamentally wiki-altering as coverage of a major character like the Master to a later date when the forums are back up. We really need to make sure we can do nomral wiki-text to competently have that conversation. After all, if we were going to move wiki-altering conversations to Discussions, then there's been no point to this whole process. I know it's probably been frustrating for you to wait a while, but it will be better, ultimately, to have done so. Thanks! 21:00: Sat 27 Feb 2021

Vandalism
Hey there, just wanted to let you know that this user seems to have been vandalising this wiki as of late. Please block him if you see fit. Thanks! Tenebrous  (Talk)  (Contributions)  (My Guestbook)  06:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded. One of these edits was to Najawin's userpage where he said that the user in question "must die". It's just out of order and the spree of edits just take advantage of the lack of users at such hours of the morning. The  Farty  Doctor   Talk  06:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Guys, I honestly don't see the need to ping an admin, this is such a blatant example that as soon as they're on they'll see it. Pinging an admin only calls attention to the admin's talk page if the user that's committing vandalism is watching recent changes. Which isn't a good idea. imo you either ping them on another wiki for the massive ones or ping them here for the smaller ones. Najawin ☎  06:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Najawin is right. No point in pinging an admin if none are available, and you're only giving these people the attention they are desperate for. Take it from me (after eight years experience as an admin) that we do indeed see the vandalism when we're on and we do take care of it thanks Shambala108 ☎  00:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Fan image?
I'm confused what you mean by "fan image"? RadMatter ☎  18:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I just saw your explanation. Sorry. I thought you meant that I had posted a fan picture pretending it was by Paul Magrs. RadMatter ☎  18:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mystery Lady
Hi Scrooge,

Did you ever think some more about whether the Mystery Lady series deserves a single page or individual pages for each release? From this discussion Talk: Dodie Golightly - list of appearances. RadMatter ☎  16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Presumably enough time has passed by now? RadMatter ☎  12:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about splitting pages?
Hi Scrooge MacDuck,

I've been editing some of the activity book pages recently, and I was wondering if these two pages: should be split into Activity Annual (2008 activity book) & Activity Annual (2009 activity book); and Funfax (2005) & Funfax (2007) respectively. As currently, both versions of those books are on the same page and they are totally different from one another, sharing only a title and not much else.
 * Doctor Who Activity Annual
 * Doctor Who Funfax

I'm unsure on the policy on this so I thought I'd ask an admin.

Thanks in advance. Doc77can ☎  16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK cool, I'll get on to that then. Are my proposed names for the separate pages suitable? Doc77can ☎  16:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I thought it was a policy to remove "Doctor Who" from all book pages, as the rest of the activity book pages don't have it. Is just the year enough for a dab term for Funfax or would Funfax (2005 edition) & Funfax (2007 edition) be better?

Doc77can ☎  16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

TVC
Hey, since you re-created Untitled (TVC 696 comic story) and Untitled (TVC 740 comic story), how would you feel about Untitled (TVC 798 comic story)? OS25🤙☎️ 21:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I really can't imagine that it is unlicensed, since the Daleks were heavily featured in TV Comic by that stage. It's not like they drew the Daleks when they weren't publishing Dalek stories, for instance. It seems kind of far fetched to say "the story on page 6 is licensed but the story on page 11 isn't". Legally impractical, even. OS25🤙☎️ 23:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As general evidence of my point here, I'll mention one obscure licensed use of the Daleks: TV Offal.


 * TV Offal was a skit series which ran on Channel 4 from 1997 to 1998. It featured a recurring segment called "The Gay Daleks" which was licensed, with Terry Nation being credited. However, five years later, when Victor Lewis- Smith tried to make more "Gay Dalek" content, he was denied the license.

"The Terry Nation estate (who happily gave me permission to use the Daleks five years ago) have now refused point-blank to let me use them again, and I am therefore unable to add to the Gaiety of Nations."

- Victor Lewis- Smith


 * If you google these skits you can probably guess pretty easily why the Nation estate didn't want to give him a second license, by the way.


 * My point is that the licenses clearly didn't say "You can use the Daleks, but only if we like the skits." They weren't given restrictions on content or the ability to veto material after the rights were secured. It was just a general note of "Yes, you can use the Daleks on TV."


 * Similarly, the TV Comics right to the Daleks wouldn't have been "you can use them on page 2 but not page 10," or "You can use the Daleks but only if you follow these guidelines." (Frankly, the other TV Comic Dalek stories which we do cover can be goofy as hell, i might add) If TV Comic had the rights to use the Daleks in their comics, which they did, then I don't see how we can claim that they didn't? OS25🤙☎️ 00:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Well if it helps us avoid that, I think it's very hard to find a reliable version of the article I just quoted. You'd have to actually track down the copy of The Mirror from that day. Outside of that, the only evidence is Terry Nation's foundation being listed in the credits.

I think the Daleks don't appear in that specific issue of TV Comic, but mainly because the strip didn't do Dalek stories every week. So TV Comic 792 to 795 is a Dalek story, as-is 803 to 806. 798 was the conclusion of The Zombies, which ran in-between The Doctor Strikes Back and The Exterminator. OS25🤙☎️ 00:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also important to note that the attempt at a series was listed as one of the reasons why the Daleks wouldn't be returning in the BBC Wales production, along with the BBC giving permission to use the Daleks to a movie without the Nation Estate's permission. And the quotes I can find also involves Lewis-Smith insulting the Nation Estate as he recounts the version of events. So we have a questionably sourced statement of questionable motives on the one hand, and the only other time the issue is referenced at all it's in connection to the BBC not talking to the Nation Estate about what they're licensing. Tiny bit sketchy. Najawin ☎  00:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Monthly - March 26
Hey Scrooge! Last month we announced that Fandom is doing a monthly admin get together called The Monthly to keep you up to date with the latest Fandom news. The next session will be next week, Friday, March 26.

Last month, you should have received an email about it, with the option to either opt-in or opt-out of receiving invites. If you haven't already, please do dig up the first email and select one of the following options:


 * opt-in will put you on the monthly mailing list, ensuring that you'll get an invite each time. Next week's invite has been sent out!
 * opt-out will take you off the mailing list.

It is known that the links will appear broken when you click on them, but your chosen preference will still be registered.

If you want to let me know which option you chose, that would be great as if you decided to opt out then I will stop messaging you about it. Many thanks! :) --Spongebob456 talk 14:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying to explain T:OOU to another user/bordering on Vandalism
It seems there's an edit war over at Autism, formerly between myself and User:DGKitten. Whilst I understand their reasons behind wanting to put the page in present tense, and somewhat agree with their sentiments, obviously due to T:OOU, all in-universe articles must be written in the past tense. Despite having tried to explain this and even point this user in the direction of T:OOU, it appears they are adamant to ignore protocol and continue on this path. Just thought I'd leave you this message (I never know who to message about these things), as I have no intention to keep this editing war going. I even asked them to head on over to the talk page for Autism, where I would have happily explained it to them more but they did not take me up on my offer. If the Forums were open to discuss such policy change, I would happily have forwarded them there to open a debate. I don't think their intent is vandalism at all, but I do think if this editing of articles continues throughout the Wiki, it may be unfortunately deemed as vandalism. Thanks for your time. Have a nice day. The Farty  Doctor   Talk  18:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
@Themeparkhenry just removed about 3,500 bytes of info from Doctor Who (N-Space) (which I immediately reverted), so could you please talk to him about not removing perfectly valid information from a page please? 📯 📂 20:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Userpage
I didn't mean to offend anyone. I just thought we were allowed to make userpages light-hearted, and also though it was a great way to get people who maybe only watched TV to get to know some of the "expanded media", as some people call it. I have put a little sentence at the top but if that's not good enough and it needs undoing, then just let me know and I'll undo it. Like I say, it was just a light-hearted joke to tempt people into the audios and the other expanded media. Didn't realise that it maybe stepped on the fanfic rules. I mean, if you read it, it doesn't read as typical Tardis Wiki material. It's a tongue in cheek article.

Let me know if you want it gone, and I'll just revert it back. The Farty  Doctor   Talk  18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Rel/Units
Having not read the source in question, I took the page at its word when it conflated "hydroelectricity" and "hydroelectric energy". We're more than capable of measuring energy, the "hydroelectric" adjective there is entirely superfluous to our units of measurement. (Hence my comments on energy in that edit. I don't think the page uses the term otherwise.) Najawin ☎  04:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously the work in question could not use hydroelectric energy, idk. But then we have a weirder task, I think. Trying to find electric charge / unit volume of water? That's also a thing we can do, and in natural units we generally take electric charge to be 1 and dimensionless, but we definitely can't do that here, since v = x/t = rel = t, so x = t^2 in terms of units, and then we take (hydroelectricity) = q/x^3 = q/t^6 = t, so q has units of t^7 or rel^7, so e, the elementary electric charge, can't be dimensionless. I have no clue what physical constants we're going to set to be one and dimensionless to get these units, but we can do it. (God, I haven't done good old fashioned dimensional analysis in years. I still hate it. I also hate powers of seven in our units. jfc. Why on earth would we want to have these units?) Najawin ☎  05:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: thinly-veiled Lolita
The only reason I haven't added that to the list is that, since we as a wiki accept that the Ship = the TARDIS and that pilot = the Doctor, the veil may be so thin that we can treat it as see-through! Not that a merger with The Master's first TARDIS is in order, of course, but I don't think there's really anything stopping us from mentioning it on either page. – n8 (☎) 15:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Is there really a story which confirms that Lolita was the War King's timeship specifically? – n8 (☎) 16:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Talkpage discussion
Hi Scrooge,

I noticed that you choose Talk: Fetish as the point-of-call for the discussion on the usage of certain words on this site. However, I think that this discussion would be best served on Category talk:Derogatory names and insults from the real world so that people can easily remember which talkpage that the discussion is being held on (as Fetish seems to have been randomly selected and some may miss the discussion on there). RadMatter ☎  23:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that it is problematic having the discussion on Fetish. Earlier I saw that the discussion was on that page, but after an hour or two I couldn't remember if it was on Fetish, Poof, Masturbation, or wherever, due to the randomness of its selection. It being on Fetish will also, in my opinion, stop new people from finding this discussion.


 * In my opinion I think that all these words can (and should) be handled in the same place. Whether they be derogatory names or whatever. Open a discussion in one place (like the Derogatory names talkpage) and collect every page that is deemed as problematic by the fanbase and then they can begin to be discussed individually. RadMatter ☎  23:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I see where you are coming from.


 * The following are all of the words that were brought up today as being unnecessary;


 * Paedophilia, Orgy, Orgasm, Oral Sex, Casual Sex, Fetish, F*ck Buddy, Vagina, Spanking, Masturbation, Posterior, Penis, Breast, Sex, Poof, Blackamoor, Cocksucker


 * All of these words are found in either the Sexuality or Derogatory names categories so I suggest those two talkpages as being the bases for these two discussions. RadMatter ☎  23:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Issues with pages related to The Daft Dimension.
Hi. I am a relatively new editor here, and while I have read through many of the policy pages, it is possible I may have missed something, so if there is a procedure for what I am presenting here, sorry. Additionally, this may not be the best place to put this. I would bring it up on the forums, but that currently isn't possible. I'm not positing it in a discussion post as I doubt anyone would look at it and I'm not sure I'm allowed to post about stuff like this there.

I have been working on an editing project to better document The Daft Dimension. One thing I've come across while doing this is that all pages on concepts specific to The Daft Dimension stories are quite inaccurately named. Take, for example, The Doctor (The Daft Dimension 489). At first glance, you would assume that this character is from the 489th issue of The Daft Dimension. In fact, there are (at the time that I am writing this) only 83 issues of The Daft Dimension, and this character appears in the 13th. The 489 actually refers to DWM 489, the magazine issue in which this comic was published. However, this isn't clear and could be quite misleading to people newer to Doctor Who. This issue also appears on a number of other pages, as well as a number of uncreated pages that are still linked to.

What to actually put as the dab term isn't particularly clear either. The story in which the previously discussed character appears is in already has a dab term, being The Daft Dimension (DWM 489 comic story). Therefore, the obvious choice might be to make The Doctor (The Daft Dimension 489) into The Doctor (The Daft Dimension (DWM 489 comic story)). However, this is incredibly long and unwieldly. Additionally, using multiple sets of brackets is recommended against by T:NAMING. Another possible option could be The Doctor (The Daft Dimension 13), which is much clearer.

However, there is actually another, underlying, issue in that T:NO TITLE states that series in which the individual entries have no clear name, they should be abbreviated and numbered, which would make The Daft Dimension (DWM 489 comic story) into TDD 13. The issue with this, however, is that there is already a series abbreviated to TDD: The Daredevils. If this were to be switched to TD, this could be made to work. If this were to happen, all 83 issues of The Daft Dimension would need to be renamed, along with all concepts specific to it (The Doctor (TDD 13) for example). Another issue with this is that there are some comic stories with individual names that have been bundled into The Daft Dimension, such as The Secret History of Life Before Doctor Who Magazine! (comic story). I'm not sure how this could be resolved.

One more issue that I have come across (which would actually be rectified if the above action was to be taken) is that there are currently 83 pages named The Daft Dimension using a dab, while the actual page titled The Daft Dimension is not a disambiguation page, instead being the series overview. T:DAB recommends that a disambiguation page should be created if 3 things share a common name. I personally think this is better how it currently is, although it does seem to go against policy, which is why I bring it up.

I hope this makes some sense and isn't too incoherent. I kept on finding new issues as I was writing and fact checking this so sorry if the structure isn't clear. Thank you for reading. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎  20:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential edit warring
Are you able to have a word with @User:Epsilon the Eternal about a potential edit war that just occurred on the page Charity publication? This user exceeded the allowed revision limit so I think that they need to be reminded. Would you also have any input to the discussion I have raised at Talk:Charity publication? RadMatter ☎  09:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I exceeded the "allowed revision limit"? What does that mean?


 * As for the "edit war": I don't believe that I was the one who initiated, seeing as I was reverting @RadMatter's edits, which were the removal of perfectly relevent information, whose removal would be detrimental to the already weak coverage of these stories. 📯 📂 09:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge you are only allowed three revisions, you went to four.


 * "An edit war is considered a "war" if you revert edits on an article 4 times within 36 hours". RadMatter ☎  09:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, I had no idea there was a limit to the times you could undo somebody removing useful information. 📯 📂 10:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not want to hijack someone's talkpage, so this shall be my last message.


 * It is your opinion that I was removing useful information, and it is my opinion that the information was irrelevant. You have been on this site for a long time so should really know the rules about edit warring. RadMatter ☎  10:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I haven't memorised every last draconian policy. I might have other things more important to memorise. 📯 📂 10:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It bewilders me as to why @Epsilon wasn't pulled up about his edit warring. Anyone else would have been told straight away...? He has just exceeded four edits again on the page Antonio Amaral, after being told about the revision limit by myself earlier. RadMatter ☎  21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)