User talk:Amorkuz

Categorical Imperative
(Not my strongest title, I know ...) For a long while now I've been planning for the rename of The War to War in Heaven (as suggested on the talk page) and I'm wondering what the procedure would be for dealing with the twelve categories that refer to The War in their names. Is there a way to rename categories? Or will someone have to enlist a bot to manually removed the old and add the new? – N8 ☎ 16:20, July 17, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation and the advice! And don't worry about transcribing Goodbye Piccadilly; I'm no stranger to the difficulties of keeping up with BF's output. I'm planning on listening to it within the week, and then I'll share the relevant section with AdricLovesNyssa. Cheers! – N8 ☎ 18:59, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, hope you're able to find this on your page... Since User:Revanvolatrelundar gave their approval of the move from The War to War in Heaven, I've gone ahead and replaced every with the corresponding. I know this is a tall order, if you get the chance, could you think about deleting some of the empty categories that are left over, and/or pulling the trigger and moving The War to War in Heaven (while leaving a redirect)? Here are the leftover categories, for your consideration: No pressure or anything, just figured I'd put it out there. Hope you're well! – N8 ☎ 23:42, October 27, 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:The War
 * Category:Conflicts in the War
 * Category:Faction Paradox members in the War
 * Category:Great House members in the War
 * Category:Groups in the War
 * Category:Individuals in the War
 * Category:Species in the War
 * Category:Technology in the War
 * Category:Vehicles in the War
 * Category:Weapons in the War
 * Category:Great House members in the War in Heaven

Royal template
I have no objections to tweaking it a little. In fact it was User:LegoK9 that created it last year. I had the idea to create a similar template so searched up "Template:Monarchs" in case such a thing already existed and found their template. I saw that it hadn't been implemented so I added it to the relevant pages.

I also thought about adding Scottish monarchs and spouses of monarchs to the template but didn't have the time. --Borisashton ☎  15:15, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

Sixth Doctor
Hi, I've been advised to ask you directly the rationale for this undo at Sixth Doctor - apologies for the hasty revert, but considering there was no explanation given I couldn't understand how this could have been done in good faith. I've looked over the edit again and I don't see how it's in any way controversial - in particular, the section over Six's regeneration was a total mess when I came across it (and is now back in that state), with references from directly contradictory accounts (that the section's entire purpose is to outline) mixed throughout. It's not fit for purpose as is, so if you do have a particular objections to the edits I made could we work together to find a workable solution? As for the notion of Sylvester McCoy playing the Sixth Doctor, it's quite frankly hair-splitting of the highest degree that doesn't belong anywhere, based on nothing more than the use of a wig during the regeneration sequence. Is there really a consensus to include that? TheOtherJenny ☎  07:23, August 6, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Regarding Sylvester, I strongly disagree (particularly that it's in any way analogous to the Curator), but if there's a consensus there I'll defer to it.
 * With my edits to the "death" section, however, they seem to have been misunderstood. The purpose of this section is to outline the three contradictory accounts of the Sixth Doctor's regeneration. The version I encountered (and as it currently exists) is the version that attempts frutlessly to stitch together a single narrative from these irreconcilable accounts, which is why I edited it. With the specific Spiral Scratch example you point out, the element of the sentence that causes an issue is not that but the following clause, attributed to Head Games. Head Games is the basis of the first account (suicide), so sourcing it in the second account is incorrect: it's a different account, and does not in any way concern the Doctor's chronal energy drain as currently implied. (The Spiral Scratch information remains in my edit, although the citation would indeed be better placed at the end of the paragraph - easily fixed.) The brief introduction I added to the top of the death section mentions the commonalities, i.e. the link to Time and the Rani (which is far better placed here than at the end of each sub-section, where it currently implies that the TV episode/novel supports particular accounts where it doesn't) and hitting his head on the TARDIS console (which can be appropriately sourced to Head Games there). I retained all sources, and in fact added one to novel The Room with No Doors, but rearranged instances where the prose switched between accounts (in one case even mid-sentence) - as the entire function of the three sub-sections is to outline one account each. The only detail I didn't retain is that of Mel seeing the Doctor attempt to activate the HADS (from the Time and the Rani novel), which I wouldn't object to being worked into the top section.
 * I'll say again that the current version is simply impossible to understand, entirely obscuring which account comes from which source due to a tangle of cross-references. Hopefully we can find a good way to move forward with it now. TheOtherJenny ☎  07:47, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Just to flag that I'm happy to continue discussing this, whenever your time allows :) TheOtherJenny ☎  02:24, August 26, 2018 (UTC)

Hit the Dab
For a while now I've had the idea of making a Panopticon thread about starting to use a (novel series) dab term on pages like Virgin New Adventures and BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures. Since you're the local king of the dab term around here, I figured I'd run the idea past you first to see if there are any obvious objections before I make the thread. So, any thoughts? – N8 ☎ 14:10, August 10, 2018 (UTC)
 * No rush! Enjoy your internet inaccessibility :) – N8 ☎ 02:14, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful explanation! The point about anthology titles vs story titles in particular was really insightful. I think I have a better understanding now of your dabbing vision (and may I say that I find it quite quite amenable).

Under these rules, my hastily-worded proposition is obviously senseless; it was careless of me to not be more clear. I want us not to just slap (novel series) or (prose series) at the end of each article title, but to shoot straight for New Adventures (prose series) and Eighth Doctor Adventures (prose series)! My main reason for this is that the format of putting the publisher in front of the series title (like on the recently-renamed Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series) has fallen out of style, and rightfully so: in the example of the recently-renamed Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series, to italicise properly, you need to manually correct it to Big Finish Bernice Summerfield series – and then lord help the poor soul who clicks on "Big Finish" expecting Big Finish !

From where I stand, something something T:NPOV, the same logic applies for Virgin New Adventures versus New Adventures (prose series) ; in practice, many articles just pipe away the word "Virgin" anyway! Hopefully that makes more sense. – N8 ☎ 05:58, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Chancellery Guard template
Hello, I had an idea for a template, but thought I'd run it by an admin first. It's essentially a template which lists all known Chancellery Guard members who have a page on the wiki, like the High Council template. It'd have Castellan, Commander, Captain and so categories.

If you don't think it's necessary, that's fine, I thought to check to see what an admin would make of it.

Thanks Ben Moore512 ☎  20:29, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Visiting Vehicles
Hi, you reverted my edit at The Eye Above because "Locations visited by X" categories aren't applied to vehicles. Whilst I can understand this rationale for things like Bessie one can actually go inside a spacecraft, hence visiting it. Indeed, all the random pages I visited just now in Category:Individual spacecraft possess the "Locations visited by X" category if applicable. Could you explain this for me since it seems like it was well-established that the category was applicable to spacecraft? --Borisashton ☎  23:23, November 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * In short, I think a separate vehicles category is an excellent idea. I look forward to hopefully help implement it. --Borisashton ☎  22:58, November 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Vehicles entered by the Doctor perhaps? --Borisashton ☎  11:53, November 23, 2018 (UTC)

Audio covers
Hi. A few months ago, User:Animan2001 uploaded individual covers for the stories from Charlotte Pollard: Series Two, The New Counter-Measures: Series Two and Tales from New Earth (audio anthology). However, the only other place these "covers" appear when I search them in Google is a Pinterest account which has several fan art covers uploaded as well. I've tried contacting Animan2001 trough their talk page, but have recieved no reply for over two months now (a time in which they edited other pages). I'm 100% sure these covers are fanmade, as there's no sign of them anywhere else but that account (Vortex, artist covers' social media, et al.). What's the best procedure now? OncomingStorm12th ☎  17:03, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it. In all honesty, I wouldn't have waited this long as well, but ended up forgetting about this. Anyway, glad the situation's resolved. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:45, January 7, 2019 (UTC)

Re: forum posts
Hi, first of all, if you have something to say to me, it's better to post it on my talk page.

The reason I posted those comments to User:Danniesen is because he is not an admin. It's not the job of a non-admin to determine personal attacks and/or validity of forum/discussion posts. I stopped him precisely because I didn't want the situation to escalate. It's not the first time I (or other admins) have had to caution users against overstepping what they're allowed to post.

And I didn't block User:DW114 for two reasons: one, because I saw his/her message at User talk:CzechOut before I saw the forum posts and feel CzechOut should deal with the matter, and two, because, I hate to admit but honestly, I skimmed over all the posts (it's a very long thread) and didn't see the last sentence.

I am still concerned about the reception given to new users, as I have in the past been accused of making new users feel unwelcome. We do have to remember that new users know very little of our rules, are inclined to gravitate towards the forum boards for their first edits, and may have come from much smaller wikis that don't have the whopping huge amount of rules that we have. That is why, in almost everything I do here, I try to make things as consistent and easy as possible.

I do think that what happened with DW114 was a huge misunderstanding, but I will take some kind of action if User:CzechOut doesn't respond in a reasonable amount of time. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  15:57, January 10, 2019 (UTC)

T:DISCUSS - No need to apologise!

 * "if an editor who is older than me applies my admittedly harsh evaluation of one user onto them, clearly I have to apologise to this long-time editor and explain myself better." -Thread:237423

Hi Amorkuz. Just wanting to clarify that I took no offence by the comments regarding T:DISCUSS and that there is no need to apologise! My comments relating to that point were a relatively tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of the fact that I've barely appeared at all these past few years as well as my probably long-forgotten by now reputation of being pretty much a forum only contributor.

In fact, I quite agree that somebody who doesn't have much stake in the mainspace shouldn't have their opinion bear equal weight to somebody more involved, despite being one of the people responsible for decriminalising forum-only posters in the first place. I wouldn't expect my opinion as effectively an outsider to bear equal weight to somebody who has actually been following and participating in the ins and outs of TDC these past few years. I know how annoying it is to be on the receiving end of having an effective outsider come along and assert that their opinion is correct onto your community despite not knowing the history and nuances of the local situation (naming no names here).

Indeed, in my particular case, my motive behind following that particular forum thread is actually in seeing how TDC handles the topic to inform what we do over at Doctor Who Answers. Since we don't have such a big or such a widely-read community as you guys do, it can be informative to see what conclusions you guys come to, given the similarity of our two wikis. But that also means that I have little direct stake in the outcome relative to TDC, and so naturally my opinions as to the direction this wiki goes in matter less than those who have made more than one set of edits a year for the past few years.

In short, there is no need to apologise as I agree with the policy as written and enforced. 😊 11:54, January 12, 2019 (UTC)

Yaz's age
Hello, Amorkuz, I was hoping to ask you a question that will clear something up for me. You see, I've been trying to find The Secret in Vault 13 in my local book shops for the past two weeks, to no avail. So, since you've edited the page more than anyone, I wanted to ask you this; thus the book state that Yaz is 20-years-old currently, or does it explicitly and unambiguously state that she was 20-years-old when she met the Doctor in The Woman Who Fell to Earth.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  18:44, January 19, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That clears everything up nicely.BananaClownMan ☎  20:38, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

The Kahn Conundrum
Hi Amorkuz. I do remember listening to the audio, if not very much about the story itself. I'll have written the surname down as I heard it phonetically. I doubt that even today they'll be anything written down anywhere to clarify the spelling for us. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help. --Revan\Talk 09:03, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

On Scrooge MacDuck's block
Hello! So, an acquaintance of mine, the user Scrooge MacDuck, has asked me to leave you this message on his behalf. It seems that you recently blocked him from the wiki for a month for the reason of "calling an admin an "incompetent bully" for a personal attack block", in response to a message which he left on the user Shambala108's talk page. However, it seems that there has been a misunderstanding, as this is not what he meant by the message at all. What he actually meant in the message that he left is that a bully who came up with "poppycock" as his best insult would be an incompetent bully indeed, and was thus clarifying that he had not meant to be a bully when he called a post "poppycock". He was not calling the admin in question an incompetent bully. Clearly, this was nothing but a misunderstanding, but as you can see, Scrooge MacDuck's block was entirely undeserved. Drleevezan ☎  00:39, February 14, 2019 (UTC) Drleevezan

Re; Scrooge MacDuck's block
Hey, got your message.

I don't actually have a problem with the misspellings of my name. First of all, though it's a great song featured in a great show, not everybody has heard of it and may not know how to spell it. Second, I have seen it spelled another way (in the Doctor Strange movie). So it's not really an issue.

However, I do have a problem with User:Scrooge MacDuck's reaction to the blocks, as you so clearly pointed out in your post to him. My original block is considered an "error" because I got "carried away" - there is no real apology ("if User:AdricLovesNyssa perceived such I'm sorry" passes the buck to AdricLovesNyssa) or admission that he could/should have been more careful with his words.

And as we both pointed out, this isn't his first offense. The first time I gave a warning, and that apparently had no effect. Given his contributions to the wiki, I made my block only three days, and there was no gratitude or acknowledgement of fault, just complaining and denying that he committed any offense.

So, to make a long story short, it's up to you. I'm fine with the length of your block, but if you want to change it, I have no complaints. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  03:15, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Inclusion Debate
I was disappointed to see my inclusion debate closed so early despite your comment and User:Scrooge MacDuck's comment being in opposition of the story's validity (thus a debate). Since I failed to fully understand Tardis:Valid sources for my initial post, am I allowed to make a new discussion explicitly defending the story within the confines of the "Four Little Rules"? The fourth rule is what allows a community discussion on what is intended to be in the DWU, after all. LegoK9 ☎  17:50, February 15, 2019 (UTC)


 * I hope posting something here is okay and makes it to you as a proper notification!


 * I have a quick question about Thread:246053, related to Scrooge MacDuck's recent post on User talk:Shambala108. In closing that thread, you said,

"This wiki does not grant validity simply for including a character that appeared or originated in a DWU story. The Big Finish Vienna series is a typical example when even a Vienna Salvatori-centred spin-off remians invalid, despite Vienna herself debuting in a DWU story.

This thread is based on incorrect and/or incomlete reading of our four little rules and its argument goes against multiple precedents that ruled against stories involving DWU characters."

- Thread:246053


 * Now, I can think of dozens of stories – maybe hundreds – that are valid on this wiki simply because they include a character that appeared or originated in a DWU story. Pretty much every valid BBV Productions release, for instance. Or Imaginary Boys. Or hell, K9. Tardis:Valid sources itself says, "Extraordinary non-narrative evidence — such as the story's author directly saying that the story doesn't happen in the normal DWU – must be presented to the community for a story to be kicked out based on Rule 4." And such evidence is why the Vienna series was excluded from the wiki despite featuring a DWU character, which is ordinarily a sufficient criterion.


 * What I originally understood you to be saying was that, when exceptions to this general rule have been determined in previous inclusion debates (as has been done with characters like Vienna, Señor 105, and of course Death's Head), it's very important to remember that something stronger than the ordinary criteria is needed. But now I'm seeing your quote being cited as policy outside of those contexts to apply to other characters, and it has me wondering if I misunderstood. Did you not mean for your quote to generalize to cases beyond the already-deemed exceptions, or is T:VS simply out-of-date regarding current policy? – N8 ☎ 13:00, June 12, 2019 (UTC)

Tabs?
Hei Amorkuz, I feel it would be very helpful to add more organization to the Doctor pages (like tabs, for example). When I am looking for a special scene or an episode I can't recall the title of I have to scroll down miles of text. Am I the only person who feels this could be much easier? Greetings, Ivy Adrews ☎  22:53, February 16, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Editing before validity is decided

 * "On a separate but related note, it has come to my attention that you have on occasion implemented the projected results of a validity debate weeks before even starting the actual debate, for instance, at Special:Diff/2605116." Please refrain from this in the future.

1. Understood.

2. I was the one who made the page of Captain Britain (1985) months ago, I believe? (I can't see the history now that it has been deleted) I then made Free-Fall Warriors (comic series) a few weeks ago while working on Doctor Who spin-offs. In my defense, I had no reason to think these stories were not valid; nobody questioned the validity of these pages for many weeks. I had never made an inclusion debate until the last week, so I must say I was not projecting results of a debate because I did not know I needed to make one in the first place. (I still posit that they are a spin-off akin to, say, the Virgin Bernice Summerfield novels.) I was operating that they were valid because no one told me other otherwise for months.

The sad irony is that I was planning to finally read these obscure stories this weekend...

Please forgve my error made in ignorance.

Image aspect ratio?
has been removed twice for "Aspect ratio wrong: should approach widescreen dimensions".

The image guidelines say, "images should have a widescreen orientation, where possible", so I resubmitted the image with the top caption cropped off to approach widescreen. While it was still vertical (500 x 561), I see no way to crop this vertical comic panel to be widescreen and contain all the subject matter. (I want to link to an off-wiki scan of the full page to illustrate, but I'm not sure if that is allowed.)

Am I misunderstanding the guidelines? What aspect ratio is approaching widescreen but is still vertical? LegoK9 ☎  03:01, February 22, 2019 (UTC)

DWTV template issue
Could you please take a look at an issue with protected template: Template talk:DWTV ? —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:26, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

Obverse expertise sought
Hi Amorkuz. Unfortunately I don't own the anthology in question, in fact, I'm a good few years behind on Iris' adventures. I've instead left quite a "War and Peace" length message on Rachel's talk page with my thoughts on the subject. This is quite a new era for us, having authors editing pages, and I hope my views will help us form some consensus on the subject. If you would, I'd like you to read over what I've put, and perhaps we can start some kind of forum thread where we can get to the bottom of the subject and establish some policy on it. --Revan\Talk 15:23, March 6, 2019 (UTC)


 * Jumping in here to reply to the same message: I do in fact own a copy of the story in question! So I'll accordingly bump it up my priority queue and leave a nice message on Rachel's talk page. Thank you for bringing the situation to my attention, and know that you're never a bother! – N8 ☎ 18:48, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Deadname treatment
I don't know if you read my edit summary when you reversed the edit on Lilah Sturges page, which said "Not relevant. Before reversing this edit please consider the Hate Crimes Act 2003 and the Equalities Act 2010 in relation to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'. Also Stonewall's advice in relation to not deliberately deadnaming." but either way I would strongly urge you to reconsider reversing my edit and locking the page, otherwise I will be forced to take further action. Given TARDIS wiki's frankly abysmal reputation I think insisting on deadnaming, despite other sites such as wikipedia now widely avoiding this, does not reflect well on the wiki. If you were to revise your policy it would be a step in the right direction for cleaning up this wiki, and making it a more tolerant place.

Thanks, BamMitch ☎  08:12, March 20, 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I have to admit that while the tone of your response was fittingly cordial, I do find the assertion that transgender people should "stand down" disagreeable. With respect, I do not believe that this issue will be resolved if the people fighting for a change to the policy simply relinquish power to the admins. And while I am pleased to hear that you have a transgender admin, from what I hear they also believe there should be amendment to this wiki's policy on deadnaming, so I would hope that you would respect their opinion, even if not ours. And regardless, I personally feel that the approach of admins working away on these discussions behind the scenes is unnecessarily insular, and fails to acknowledge the rest of the Doctor Who community. I feel that the issue may well benefit from a more open discussion.

Obviously I am aware of the fact that there was previously a combative exchange of edits between a transgender person and one of this wiki's admins, which resulted in the transgender person being blocked. With my own edit I simply tried to bring in another approach with the edit summary, hoping this might make a difference, but did not persist when this change was reversed (not that I could've done, admittedly, with the page being locked soon after). While I sympathise with the person who made the original edits, as this is an emotional issue for trans people, you have made it clear that their approach will not make a difference.

I am glad to hear that the policy is being discussed, and would like to articulate more clearly the point I briefly made in my edit summary, for the consideration of the admins discussing this issue.

''Stonewall, which is the most prominent and well respected LGBT charity, even having a page on this wiki, states clearly that deliberate deadnaming is a form of transphobic bullying (on the following page https://www.stonewall.org.uk/truth-about-trans#deadnaming-misgendering). By having a policy in favour of deadnaming, that means this wiki is officially in favour of transphobic bullying.''

I hope you will forward that message to other admins involved in this discussion and consider its meaning. If this wiki is openly in favour of transphobic bullying, or bullying of any kind, surely that is an indefensible position?

Also, I find it curious that you raised the issue of Big Finish's deadnaming, given that the article I edited related to a comics artist, but I am glad you did. I intend to raise the issue with them equally at some point in the next week, and hope that, given their duty as a British company to adhere to the Hate Crimes Act 2003, they will consider my point.

BamMitch ☎  17:23, March 20, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the response again. I am glad you are actively moving towards a solution that avoids deadnaming real people, and look forward to seeing it implemented. If you create and implement a policy which, as you say "fits with our general naming policies and provides sufficient information for readers without misgendering trans people involved." then I (and many others) will be very happy indeed. Thanks a lot for hearing me.

BamMitch ☎  18:32, March 20, 2019 (UTC)

I noted that you didn't reply my last message about the Historical Stories article, so I'll leave it here. Hope you can answer: I was starting to write the sandbox, when I thought of something: Shouldn't it be better for the Historical stories to be inside the Fan Terminology category? I checked and the articles in it don't seem to have strong sources or references. I could write an article with an explanation based on sources like the Handbooks and other sources, and, instead of creating a category for these stories, make a list with the usually accepted historical and pseudo-historical stories (by usually accepted I mean based on the fandom, since it's fan terminology, or a source if I can find one), just like in the TARDIS team article, which states something not from official sources but from common knowledge. I might add both. I'll start making the article in the sandbox (with the list), from a fan terminology perspectivew. If this Wiki doesn't agree, I'll go back to the original plan.Dr Von Wer ☎  13:11, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

Image policy
I'm trying to get an image policy finalized, and would like to invite you to discuss it on Thread:247941.

Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  22:27, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

RE: blocks
Hi, thanks for your input.

I'm not really interested in participating; this is a busy time of year for me job-wise (imagine my surprise when I got home from work today to find I had several messages waiting for me here!). My main concern is the block itself.

User:SOTO not only refused to ask me first to shorten my block, he also basically accused me of blocking someone to silence their voice for my own gain (his words: "trying to silence this user for their other edits, essentially taking another POV."). I've kept my comments about his recent behavior to myself, in order to "assume good faith", but his behavior here makes it difficult.

Sorry to burden you with this, but I wanted to give you the courtesy of a reply to your invitation to participate. Happy editing, Shambala108 ☎  01:19, March 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, just wondering why you unblocked User:NilsoxTheresaMay, whose only contribution to the wiki is a major violation of Tardis:No personal attacks which was weirdly directed at User:BamMitch who didn't even do what NilsoxTheresaMay accused them of. thanx Shambala108 ☎  00:36, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

Hi I'm new here.
Hi I'm fairly new to this wikia. I must say, I made my first edit that I thought was helpful genuinely and was reverted. Now I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is being reverted blankly with no edit summary explaining why like "sorry, I didn't find this helpful." I've been put off by this silent revert as it looks as if I'm not to be trusted. I mean no harm to this wiki and just wish to help. Next time I make an edit, unless it's obviously malevolent, which it won't. I'm here to help. I would at least like you to explain why your reverting.

No personal whine at you just a note to everyone.--BlueKraid ☎  21:38, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Portuguese edits
I have edited the section about the books published in Brazil on the page "Doctor Who in non-English speaking countries" The text in Portuguese were the titles of the books in the Brazilian version.

Twelfth Doctor edit
Here is my edit. However, Clara, angered by the position the Doctor had put her in and threatening to make him regenerate by slapping him so hard... 19:17, April 21, 2019‎ - https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Twelfth_Doctor?action=history Doctor 25 ☎  19:55, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

Living people
you read my page Please refrain from accusing people, dead or alive, of wrongdoing without producing substantial evidence of said wrongdoing. i am not accuse people i simple write same words i found in dr who ( dr who and the daleks) page if you look there same thing there to with links.

Delete request
one more thing i dont know how to delete a catagory in Zephon (Liberation) page i wrongly wrote catagory page species with unknown name that was not a species but a person can you delete that

Just a Note on the ‘Death Comes to Time’ Debate
Hello!

Since I wasn't around to reply at the time (for obvious reasons), I wasn't able to reply to you then, but I did want to answer to some of the points you raised in your closing of the ‘Death Comes to Time’ in Relation to ‘Zagreus’ inclusion debate. To be clear, I do not argue with the closure of said thread; it was found that the new evidence I had presented was insufficient, and I respect that decision. That “Time Lords with fearsome mind powers” is an insufficiently precise description of the DCTT universe is a very good point.

But I do wish to make it known that I didn't open the debate “just because I wanted it to be valid”. Sorry if I gave that impression (which is indeed bad form for an inclusion debate); the root of the debate wasn't some burning desire of mine for DCTT to be valid, and, indeed, I had lived with its invalidity without grousing for months by then. I just happened to be reading the page over, as I stated in the first post of that thread, and stumble upon the “Zagreus” reference there. Prior to the actual digging-up of the quote that had been overinterpreted to reach this conclusion, it did seem to me to be pretty important evidence in favor of validity, and evidence which had, as far as I could tell, not been brought up in the previous discussions of DCTT.

I also did not know that Zagreus was among the stories made freely available on Spotify before you pointed it out in said closing message; not digging up the quote myself was not a random bout of laziness on my part. (My hope was, rather, that whoever had originally added the note to Zagreus might perhaps show up and explain their own reasoning, saving anyone else the trouble of having to buy the story if they didn't want to.) And you will note that before you gave your own "official thanks" to NateBumber for finding the Zagreus quote, I had myself written in answer to Nate's post: “Thank you immensely for providing the full quote, anyway.”. I didn't just take it for granted.

Finally, you ask — “Even if there were some reasons to change the status of this story from "covered invalid" to "covered valid," what would have been achieved by that?”. Well, sure, Death Comes to Time itself is covered extensively on its page, but not its contents. For example, the page Tannis must, if DCTT is invalid, focus on the Gallifrey Chronicles reference to the character, with the actual meat of what people want to know about the character banished to a blurb in the Behind the scenes section. If it were valid, we'd have a full page, with Infobox and Biography and Physical Appearance and all. (Before you ask “okay, but who would actually go edit the pages?”, which is a fair question which I know is sometimes asked in Inclusion Debates, I would have been glad to do it.)

And you further ask: “''Is it desired that the Seventh Doctor page necessarily states, "According to another account, the Seventh Doctor died there and then"? And each future consequent Doctor's page states at the end, "According to another account, this Doctor never existed"?''” Well, no, obviously. That would indeed be a rather silly demand for me to make. But I never made it. The pathway to validity for DCTT which I thought I saw in the Zagreus quote would have had it covered as an alternate reality akin to the Unbound audios; we would have come up with a name for the DCTT universe, à la The Infinity Doctors universe, written a page about said universe, and redirected Seventh Doctor (Death Comes to Time) to Seventh Doctor (Death Comes to Time universe) or whatever, keeping the prime Seventh Doctor page unspoiled of ungainly “according to one account, he died” statements.

So, there you are. Such were my thoughts when I penned this debate. Flawed perhaps (the failure of the proposal makes that clear enough), but not quite as ill-thought-out as I think you made it sound in that closing post. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:50, May 15, 2019 (UTC)

Mirror Folk image
Right, so — you didn't leave any summary when you deleted File:Mirror Folk.jpg, and I'm… sort of confused as to what the issue with it was? I checked that it was under 100ko, and it was definitely in jpg format… --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  09:27, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh, sorry for missing it. Right then. And thank you for the quick reply!


 * As concerns my activities on the other Wiki, they didn't particularly familiarize me with such matters because we almost never delete images; only ones that outright violate Fandom-wide policy (i.e. copyright infringements) and clear trolling warrant deletion of a file, not unfitness for a page. And even then, I’m the one deleting the images, so it gave me no particular experience for whether or not the summary is included in the notification email. (Seems a bit weird to me that it isn't.)


 * Oh, and about the Widowed Reflections, I do know species names should always be singular, but by my reckoning it's not a species name; it's the name of a group, the Mirror Silversmith's personal army. The singular rule doesn't apply to group names, does it? I see for example that it's Baker Street Irregulars, not Baker Street Irregular. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:14, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

Re: page naming
But… this is precisely my point. By my understanding of the story, Widowed Reflections is a proper name, just like United Nations; which is also why I believe it should be capitalized, as opposed to being Widowed reflection(s).

It is, of course, a little hard to tell in comics, what with everything being in capital letters. If you think I'm wrong on this I'll of course trust your judgement on it. But the matter is quite what we take the name "Widowed Reflections" to be, not a misunderstanding of Tardis's policies on my part. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:33, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
 * The species is Mirror Folk; “the Widowed Reflections” is the nickname the Doctor gives to the army of misshapen Mirror Folk that the Silversmith uses as bodyguards. Or at least, that's what I understood. I could be wrong. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:18, May 16, 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, if you insist. Seems a bit odd to me to declare that the main 'monsters' of a story don't deserve a page when Tardis usually decides that “there's no such thing as too trivial”, with even minor references getting a page. But oh well. It's true that we can cover the same information on the main Mirror Folk page.


 * Concerning Mirror Folk vs. Mirror folk — how do we know, what with all the dialogue being in capital letters? Species name are capitalized as often as not. Need I mention Daleks, and Cybermen, and Ice Warriors (for one that's two words)? And this practice has held true even for species whose name is a nickname given by the Doctor, and one never seen in lowercase prose: Boneless is always capitalized in its article. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  09:49, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Merge request
the doctor (brain of morbius) and patience husband pages and man with the rosette and war king pages can we merge them they clearly same man with the rosette is war king and patience husband is the doctor (brain of morbius)

Wiki Manager
Hi Amorkuz! My name is Playsonic2 and I’m the Fandom Wiki Manager assigned to TARDIS Data Core. I am here to help the community and be a liaison to full-time Fandom staff.

I also happen to be an administrator at the Spanish Doctor Who Wiki, which has me spending considerable amount of time here (adding interlanguage links mostly). I know this wiki wonderfully organised and that CzechOut assists with any technical issues, but if there is anything I could assist with, I would be pleased to help. I will be available on my talk page! ~Playsonic2 09:05, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

The Happiness Patrol Novelisation
Hello.

You were the first admin listed, so i apologise if you are not rhe right person to ask. I also apologise if this is not the right place to ask a question, as I am new to editing; I have been a passive lurker up until this point.

I was wondering if there is a specific mandate against information from the novelisation of The Happiness Patrol? I have noticed that additions from novelisations, such as character names and backstories, are included on the appropriate pages, for the most part, and are considered to have canonical value. However, very little information from the novelisation of The Happiness Patrol seems to have been assimilated into their relevance pages.

Trivia above Terra Omega introduced in the novel does seem to have been taken and added to the wiki, however significant backstory in regards to Terra Alpha, Helen A, Gilbert M and the Kandyman appear to be entirety absent, with no references made to the novelisation whatsoever.

Similarly, the page for the novelisation of The Happiness Patrol appears to be somewhat sparse, particularly the "differences from televised version" section, which only lists two small differences and again excises (or fails to include) the expansive new information the novel provides.

I apologise again if you are not the person to ask this question, or if this is not the place, but I felt a degree of curiosity and minor injustice. I will admit that my judgement could be clouded by the fact that The Happiness Patrol is possibly my favourite serial, however I do still see the absence of so much canonical information as mysterious and strange.

GrepellioShush ☎  14:23, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

Re: The Body in Question
Duly noted and thanks for the support. Shambala108 ☎  22:19, June 15, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Amorkuz,


 * I'm really surprised and frankly rather dismayed at your reply to my question. You're quite right that if I have a question about a thread closure done by Shambala108, I should run it by her first. But I didn't, because I don't. When I originally read your closure to Thread:246053, I came to one conclusion about what you were saying. When I saw how Shambala108 interpreted it in Thread:246276 – specifically, when I noticed it based on Scrooge MacDuck's comment on User talk:Shambala108 – I realized my conclusion might be incorrect. As I thought I made quite clear in my original note on your page, my question to you was an honest attempt to clarify my misunderstanding.


 * My only contribution in Thread:246276 was a comment in support of the invalidity of the advertisement you shared from Transformers UK #191, and a few "Kudos"es related to your repeated statements about the usefulness of "collect[ing] all facts; then weigh[ing] them". You obviously have a lot of strong opinions about the story in question and its inclusion debate, but quite frankly, I don't give a toss about it one way or the other. The reason for my inquiry was that I'm working on a project that may or may not turn into a new Doctor Who spinoff. If it did, I'd obviously rather it be valid on the wiki than the opposite. And its link to the DWU happens to be that it includes a character that originated in a DWU story. So of course I wanted clarification as to whether your statement was meant to apply to all characters or just ones with, for lack of a better phrase, "something else going on". You can understand how disconcerted I would be if my for-all-intents-and-purposes DWU project was struck down because "This wiki does not grant validity simply for including a character that appeared or originated in a DWU story."


 * Instead of and engaging with my question at face value, you've repeatedly tried to accuse me of "undermining" another admin decision, going so far as to drag Shambala108 into the conversation with a note on her talk page. Like you said to her: I do not appreciate this attempt. It's really disappointing to me that you immediately jumped to the least charitable possible conclusion based on what I thought was an innocent inquiry. Here I was thinking we'd all gotten over the leftover baggage from early 2017, but it seems that there's still some ill will floating around. Ahh well. – N8 ☎ 22:16, June 16, 2019 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the conditional apology and list of justifications, though as I thought I made clear in my last note, there's no need for the "if"s: you did misinterpret my question, and your reaction was based on a misunderstanding. When I read Scrooge MacDuck's post on Shambala108's talk page, and subsequently cited it in my questions to you, I didn't expect it to be seen as problematic because I simply took him at his word when he said that his questions, like mine, were for the sake of clarifying precedent and better understanding the rules, rather than contesting or trying to overturn the decision (as I see he recently reminded you below). If only we all shared your talent for spotting ulterior motives in clarifying questions! I don't know anything about this unfolding drama concerning the illegality of disagreeing with policy and helping users and whatnot, nor do I want to – I've read through enough wiki drama for one lifetime – but that point about T:FAITH seems quite well-advised.


 * All that aside, I'd never considered the difficulty caused when I leave a note mid-talk page; I usually browse User talk:NateBumber using the History function, so besides the little "I recognize this is nontraditional but I don't like adding new sections when there's already a relevant one" disclaimer I always append, it honestly never occurred to me quite how annoying it must be to find a new message. Chesterton's fence strikes again! Genuinely thank you for pointing this out, and I'll be sure to keep it in mind in my future communications with you and other users on the wiki. – N8 ☎ 14:08, June 19, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I'm only just now getting back to you. By no means do I expect you to know this, but as mentioned on my user page, I help run several subreddits used (in total) by over half a million users, as well as a Discord server with some 4000 members. So I'm well aware of the realities of moderating / administrating any public forum, and I appreciate the amount of behind-the-scenes work involved, including the identification of trolls and distinction from simply misguided users; I certainly didn't intend to imply otherwise. All that my "complaining" was trying to convey was that, for the future, I'd appreciate the face-value meaning of my words to be taken over any perceived subtexts. As far as "accusations" go, regarding T:FAITH and otherwise, I believe my original response covered everything fairly thoroughly. I thought the conversation had already been brought to a conclusion, so unless you have any further comments, I see no problem with ending it here without any ill will.

(By the way, unrelated to all of this, that podcast invitation is still open. It'd really be a shame to only get one point of view on the topic at hand, and I'd give you all the questions well ahead of time so you'd know I'm not trying to pull anything. I'm really not an asshole, I just get a little prickly sometimes about accusations etc. In any case, you know how to contact me.) – N8 ☎ 15:14, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

‘Acting like an admin’

 * Oops, didn't see that was a Tales from the TARDIS thread — there was already a reply on it when I got there, which is the one to which I replied. That aside (and I'm quite sorry for that oversight) I don't see how my post could be read as usurping admin authority when I literally prefaced it with “Not an admin, but”.


 * I was not 'questioning' the closure of the Body in Question thread in any other sense than the overly literal one of asking questions about it. The message I left on Shambala's talk page (to which Shambala kindly replied) was outright prefaced with a clarification that I was asking about the circumstances of the closure and the precedent it may or may not set, not trying to have the decision overturned. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:22, June 16, 2019 (UTC)
 * …oh, so is it forbidden to help other editors, now? I have never claimed to be an administrator (indeed I usually remind people that I am not if I think they might get the wrong impression), but I don't see why accurately answering questions about existing policy should be an admin's prerogative, and if there is a statement to this effect somewhere among Tardis's policies I'd like to see it, thank you very much. It'd be another thing if I were trying to enforce policies, especially if they were new policies of my own devising; but where is the harm in a somewhat more experienced editor giving fully-legitimate tips to a confused one? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  10:37, June 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll obey that ruling, albeit grudgingly, though as you anticipated I do not agree with it. (How do you expect me to agree with a ruling that actively forbids me from helping people?!…)


 * …But you see, that's the thing. I'll obey it. I know your experience with other users who disagree with policy has been different, but I do not set out to intentionally break policies. Complain (vocally if need be) if I think they're unfair, yes; but until such a time as I can get them repealed I abide by them.


 * I think you misunderstood the point of the section on my userpage to which you refer; as stated quite clearly therein, it is a profession of intellectual disagreement, not a warcry; I wrote what I had to say to get it off my chest, but made it clear that whilst I don't like that this is how you lot run things, I understand that you do, and will keep out of those policies' ways for as long as they stand.


 * By the same principle, I'm certainly not out to mislead when I give people tips. I'm just… giving people tips. Because they seem to need them, and as I often see you or Shambala pointing out, admins are busy fellows, who can't be expected to answer each and every question in the lapse of time expected by the new users who ask them. That Tales from the TARDIS oversight you keep mentioning was just that, an oversight, and one which, again, merely followed from that of another user whose ill-placed post preceded mine.


 * (Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point is in fact a policy with whose spirit I quite agree, though I'm a little bemused by the occasional lumping-together of actual point-making-disruption trollery with people reopening forum debates in good, if sometimes mistaken, faith.)


 * Oh, and when I say I am "more experienced", I didn't mean that in an absolute sense that'd make me out to be some sort of great wise man; merely that sometimes other users are puzzled by questions to which, having been on the Wiki a little longer than them, I know the answer.


 * I similarly think you're quite misrepresenting my proposed change to No personal attacks, as well. I'm not encouraging actual personal attacks, or advocating leniency towards them, not at all; rather, I'm trying to close the loophole that landed me my ban that lumped in quite unintended misreadings with unambiguous insults. As I argued there: shouldn't the Assume good faith principle dictate that if a sentence has an innocuous first meaning and a farther-fetched unsavory second meaning, the first meaning should be assumed to be the intended (and thus blameless) one? Innocent till proven guilty and all that. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:35, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Who auf Deutsch
One more question about Doctor Who auf Deutsch: how would you recommend linking the voice actor pages to keep them from being on Special:Lonelypages? --Borisashton ☎  16:46, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Further Protests of Good Faith
Just saw your post on NateBumber's talk page, and… urgh. I fear there is no easy way to get out of a situation that goes something like:
 * Person A: "I'm acting in good faith."
 * Person B: "I don't believe you."
 * Person A: "But I'm telling you otherwise!"
 * Person B: "Yes, in bad faith."

But once again I feel compelled to assure you that I'm acting in good faith here. Sometimes I make mistakes. Sometimes I disagree with this or that. But I'm trying to help make a good Wiki here, not cause trouble for trouble's sake.

You brought up the Anna's Doctor Who Surprise thing again, and… really? Do you truly think I did that in bad faith? It was nothing but a honest debate on determining whether the webcast was meant as a story or not, and you'll recall that it took me a while to even grasp that you thought that considering it as a story would be disparaging. I told you then, as I tell you now, that I'd honestly find it thrilling in her place if she had gotten to star in her very own little Doctor Who skit as part of the 'Surprise'. Besides which, once I was presented with evidence of its non-in-universe-ness, I was convinced, and did not bring it up again.

You also write “A user acting in good faith who disagrees with a policy initiates a debate to improve the wiki's policies”. I have done this on several occasions (i.e. the ongoing Disney Time 1975 thread), so there only remain the disagreements I voiced on my user page. And as for those:
 * one is the matter of image-size, about which there have been other debates in the past, closed in favor of the current "JPG, and not bigger than 100ko" setup. I do not have new arguments for changing that policy: I just personally think, against those threads' closing admins' opinion, that the arguments presented there were good enough. But Tardis policy actively prevents me from opening a debate on those grounds, because it would count as "disrupting the Wiki to prove a point".
 * the other is the matter of my proposed changes to the "personal attacks" and "help I'm banned etiquette" policies, about which I would gladly make forum threads, except that you make no secret of your opinion that I'm only proposing these changes in bad faith to weaken admin authority and make personal attacks okay. If you're willing to believe that I make those proposals in good faith, then I'll gladly argue for them, but so long as you don't, what even would be the point?

In the hope that we can finally understand each other's point of view better, --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:46, June 24, 2019 (UTC)