User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan

Hi there. I was wondering why you keep adding spaces to the infoboxes of the pages you're editing. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see Template:Infobox Individual. That is how infoboxes are copied and pasted, without the spaces some other wikis might have. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are doing it to have uniformity with other Wikis, please don't. We have our own internal rules and conventions, and it ultimately serves very little purpose.


 * If you believe that this change, however, should be implemented, as it is such a large, site-wide change it would necessitate a Forum discusssion. If the change was accepted, you wouldn't have to implement it manually, nah, we've got bots that can do it much faster. 📯 📂 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In relation to your message on my talk page, I'm confused. You want uniformity but are going against the template page which most editors copy and paste onto pages? Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * And yet you'll notice that the overwhelmimg majority of pages do not have the spaces. Look at how many you've added today. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yet they're uniformly lacking in spaces. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, time for me to step in properly now that dialogue has been initiated, as I see tones are getting a bit heated. To begin with, User:DrWHOCorrieFan has a point that @User:Jack "BtR" Saxon, your initial edit summaries might have been somewhat unfriendly in their wording.


 * But on the object-level issue, Jack and User:Epsilon the Eternal are correct that just because other Wikis do things one way, doesn't mean you should try to bring Tardis in line with it. See Tardis:When do local rules prevail? for more discussion of this. You shouldn't upend the way things are done on hundreds of page without just cause or due discussion, even if it's in this sort of generally harmless way. Also, since it has no effect on how things display outside of source-mode, it's overall a waste of editing time that you could be using more productively in other areas of the Wiki. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough on tidying the infoboxes in the process. Thank you for that!


 * Regarding the lack of written policy on the matter, it may not be stated as a rule, but note that the preload templates you can choose from when creating a new page use the space-less version, so it's coded into the Wiki's very CSS that our style guide is not to have the space. But that's almost irrelevant. The main point is that even if were not written-down policy, "how we do things across thousands of pages" is just not the sort of thing that a user should attempt to individually upend without discussion — certainly not once other users start objecting. Insisting on doing so anyway because the current way of things is technically not written-down anywhere would run up against the spirit of Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point. Trying to be a rules-lawyer helps no one. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry if that was unclear, but I was not claiming you had broken Tardis:Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point, merely explaining that it could be argued that you would be doing so if you did insist on carrying on with these edits.


 * I'm not sure what to make of your two infobox examples. Sure, the second is uneven in width, if that's what you mean to highlight? But… much like the spaces thing, this has no effects on how it displays. As such, it is not necessary to "even it up", regardless of the spaces thing. If that is what you meant about "tidying up" infoboxes, this isn't really useful either. If you're editing a page for another reason, feel free to do the width-up-evening thing, but it is not something that it is necessary to do in its own right. Again, please try to focus your editing efforts on things that actually affect the Wiki as experienced by readers. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think the thing about duplicate argument follows? But fair enough about the OCD thing, it hadn't occurred to me. Apologies. Feel free to "correct" the widths-thing, then, if it does indeed have marginal benefits that no actual downsides are there to outweigh. However, previous points about the spaces-thing stand. Other Wikis are irrelevant: if consistent we must be, precedent and the preload template concur that it should be consistency on no spaces.


 * (I'm replying regarding the messages to and from Epsilon in the section below.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Epsilon and presenting as an admin
Hi! You are correct that User:Epsilon the Eternal isn't an admin and should not speak with the authority of one (although bolded text, in and of itself, isn't really an issue).

However, I can't help but point out that you yourself, in going off to reprimand him, acted in much the same way of "telling [other users] what to do/what not to do". So, uhm, please don't do it either. If you have concerns about another user's behaviour, either engage dialogue with them in a friendlier tone than that, or, if you fear that such dialogue is unlikely to succeed, call on an admin to intercede with more authority; but don't take it upon yourself to scold other users or order them about, even if you feel they're in the wrong. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Epsilon had already seen your message, and, since he edited your talk page, will also have seen the above one. I felt that adding yet another message would have been redundant. I can post a message on his talk page if you still think it's necessary, but, again, I have every reason to believe he will be reading this very post.


 * (Re: the custom signature — I absolutely see how you got the impression it was a marker of adminship, but just to be clear, it is in no way a privilege of admins: any FANDOM user can create one! The mark of an admin is the peculiar mauve tint to how the user-name displays by default.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Message directed at me on Shambala's talk page
Hey! Setting aside our present disagreement on the object-level issue, please take your latest edit at User talk:Shambala108 off that page and transfer it to User talk:Scrooge MacDuck: it is clearly directed at me, not at Shambala (you refer to her in the third person), so it doesn't belong on her talk page in general principles. Furthermore, Shambala explicitly dislikes other users arguing on her talk page as though it were a regular article talk page.

Replying to the object-level issue, the message you quoted is not explicitly about naming. Perhaps you meant "isn't that breaking…" to be about page-naming, but this wasn't clear to anyone but yourself. The discussion was about whether to have the pages at all, and I, for one, interpreted that comment of yours as being about that, as well. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi there. Just a reminder that everything needs to be sourced, so I've gone ahead and added "(PROSE: The Torchwood Archives)" to your recent pages. I was also wondering why you've chosen to ignore the recent discussions and continue adding spaces to the infoboxes. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  19:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not policing your edits. You recently created a page which I viewed and noticed that it did not have a source as is required. I'll concede that my message could be construed as accusatory, but that wasn't my intention. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  19:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It isn't the job of admins to act as a go-between. I'm going through your edits from the past few days because they all need the same changes (e.g. minor edit to the infobox and italicisation of "Alice in Wonderland"). Do try your best not to add the spaces. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  19:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If you look through my contributions, you will see that I have done nothing but revert vandalism since 27 April, none of which involve you. You've made an incorrect assumption there.
 * Secondly, I refute having made any "nasty statements" about you whatsoever. If I came across as accusatory in this instance, it is perhaps that it's surprising that you would continue to add these spaces given the large amount of discussion regarding this a few days ago. You've given your explanation and, in good faith, have not accused you of T:BOUND or anything like that.
 * Thirdly, if you do feel that you are being harassed by myself or anybody else, do inform an admin so that they can decide if you are indeed being harassed and if any steps need to be taken. I've brought up the sourcing and the spacing and see no need for this conversation to continue unless you choose to. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  20:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Those edits were made after I messaged Nate Bumber. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  20:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Since 27 April and my message to Nate Bumber, I made seven edits; three of these were reverting vandalism, two were correcting spelling, one was a message to Epsilon about said spelling and one was reverting an edit which was not vandalism.


 * I edit here very regularly and it is unusual for me to go seven days with only as many edits. As all but one of the edits I have mentioned were reverts/corrections, I said that I had done little but revert vandalism. This seems not to have strictly been the case, but I did not expect to have to defend this statement.


 * You seem to believe that the editors here are against you. This is not the case. You were very much far from my mind when, seven days after the recent discussions, I responded to Nate's message. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  20:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: Move
Hi, the technical reason that you can't move the page is that it is move locked (see the logs here). However, generally, non-admins should not move pages as it is common community consensus that only admins should move pages (I believe the reason for this is that non-admins cannot fully perform the required clean-up as they can't delete pages but I am unsure about that). The template adds the page to a table at T:SPEEDY that admins can then work through. This system can be frustrating but, until there are forums to properly overturn it, we are bound by current policy. Bongo50  ☎  17:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, good point. Bongo50   ☎  17:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving pages
Hiya, I saw that you moved Cosmo to Cosmo (A Spoonful of Mayhem) recently, and while that is allowed by policy, it is customarily expected that if you're going to move a page, you'll move the links too, or at very least, leave a redirect. As it stands, I just had to change about ten links, all visible from Special:WhatLinksHere, which I didn't especially want to do. 📯 📂 11:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! 📯 📂 14:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The Spaces
Hi there. You seem to still be including spaces in infoboxes despite what you've been told. I'm currently going through your recent edits to remove them and amend a few other problems. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: T:SPOIL concerns
As I explained in my last edit summary, your edit was T:SPOIL-breaking — quite innocently on your part; I get you did your best to try and word it without giving anything away. But the fact of the matter is that making an edit on the talk page of a character, saying "Well, it looks like we're going to have a potential influx of new editors here, the page should be locked", gives away to anyone familiar with this Wiki that there are news of some kind about the character that can't be discussed openly yet. By the Wiki's definition, this is a spoiler, albeit a vague one. That there may be some leak or rumour circulating about [X], necessitating that [X]'s page be locked, is more information than we want to inflict on our more spoiler-averse readers without warning.

I get this isn't obvious! I'm not reprimanding you for not having grasped this at first! But I assure you that's the way T:SPOIL is. I am confident other admins would back me on this. At any rate, if you really insist on discussing it further, the appropriate medium for early Wiki discussion of future information is Howling:The Howling, not back-and-forth edit summaries!

Regarding your earlier message, I was under the impression your quarrel with User:Jack "BtR" Saxon had since been resolved privately between yourself and him. While it is unfortunate that it had come to that, I thought his answers on your talk page were satisfactory in terms of establishing there was no ill intent, and thus, that no action needed to be taken on either side. If you still have complaints about Jack's behaviour, please explain them to me. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your message. You simultaneously say that "the obvious thing to do in this situation was to redact [your] comment" (as well as lock the page), and take issue with my, in fact, redacting it?… As for why I didn't lock [X]'s page itself, but just the talk page (and even then, only briefly, to halt the edit-war-in-the-making): while actual, factual vandalism might compel us to lock it anyway, it seems to me that noticing the page is locked for no evident reason would also be a way for someone to accidentally wise up to the fact that there are spoiler-worthy news about [X]. On this, reasonable minds can disagree, but, again, the place to discuss it is a Howling thread.


 * I assumed your argument with Jack had been resolved because Jack answered your concerns on your talk page directly, in what seemed to me to be a calm and fitting manner — and because your last post on my talk page under that heading stated that "This [would] be [your] last reply", which didn't exactly feel conductive to further dialogue. If you wanted to continue rebutting Jack's explanations and pressing the issue, you didn't make it very clear.


 * To answer your original question: there are procedures in place to reprimand users if they have been unfriendly to other users, or made personal attacks. But no, there isn't an official "procedure" for "severing contact" with another user. You can ask them not to post on your talk page, as a matter of politeness, but officially severing contributions between non-blocked users feels completely at odds with the spirit of collaboration and communication that is the bedrocks of all Wikis. If you want me (or another admin) to make a ruling on whether User:Jack "BtR" Saxon's edit summaries broke Tardis:No personal attacks, that's different, but the truth is that your original inquiry just isn't something to which Wiki policy has an answer. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the redaction of the comic: ah, I see what you mean. I'll re-add a note, if it means this much to you…


 * Regarding the Jack business: I think it's rather getting lost in the shuffle that, as we established before, your "spaces" edits were against policy and essentially pointless, as a matter of fact. Perhaps he was too callous in his edit summaries (certainly he should not have called your edits "vandalisms") — but Jack's statement that those edits were "useless", at least, was in fact, factually correct. Being that these edits were wrongful (albeit well-intentioned), it does not constitute "stalking" on Jack's part to have gone through your edit history to revert them. And while "inexplicable" may be a strong word, I certainly found them rather puzzling until you explained the origin of this habit you had developed. All this being the case, while Jack's actions weren't perfect, I find that your case against him is nowhere near as strong as you feel it is.


 * Also, in the spirit of not wanting other editors to take a systematically negative view of one's actions, I would appreciate it if you stopped treating me like some kind of enemy. Admins are people too, it may surprise you to learn. We have real lives, we have feelings, we have mental health of varying fortitude, and much as you have obviously found Jack's somewhat brusque corrections draining and off-putting, I am increasingly finding your picking-apart of every interaction we have just as draining. There are ways to discuss whether my course of conduct has been optimal without suggesting I am "unreasonable", or that the Wiki's policies are "ridiculous", or that I am "bending the rules". Now, I don't, as a matter of fact, think this is part of some concerted conspiracy on your part to harass me and ruin my mental health — much as I suspect that Jack harbours no such secret agenda towards you. So I tell you all this, both to ask you to be more considerate in your messages to me, and to attempt to show you how Jack likely feels on the receiving end of your case against him.


 * Or to put it another way: yes, Jack's tone wasn't as friendly and collected as we want editors to strive to be. But you're not exactly being a shining example of that yourself, and it would go a long way if you tried to be less confrontational in how you describe my, Jack's, or other admins' and editors' behaviour, if you want Jack to be more forgiving in how he describes yours.


 * All of which said, you are of course within your rights not to want to interact with him more than you absolutely have to. It's just… I don't know what you want me to tell you here — nowhere in the Wiki's policies is there such a thing as a system for officially barring a user from interacting with another. You can ask Jack not to message you on your talk page, and it would be polite of him to comply, but there's not much else for me or any other admin to do unless you want to argue that a given message of Jack's on your talk page was a personal attack in content. I'm not disagreeing with the moral principle that you have a right to demand that Jack leave you alone, I'm just saying, this isn't a thing that admins are empowered to enforce in the current state of policy. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 02:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I just want to state that I've been an admin here for nine years and I've never seen someone scolded (sorry I can't think of a better word) for suggesting that something (which could potentially be a spoiler) be locked. I don't get that reading from Tardis:Spoiler policy at all. Shambala108 ☎  02:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * From my understanding, that is not an issue. It's where @DrWhoCorrieFan posted the request which I believe is the issue. Like you always say, @Shambala108 when in doubt, ask an admin — and in this instance, it probably would've been best for @DrWHOCorrieFan to ask youself or @Scrooge MacDuck — that way, all of this would've been kept out of the main namespace, on talk pages, where users can be fully transparent about the concerns and not have talk page messages redacted.


 * Personally, if any more information comes out about [REDACTED] appearing in [REDACTED] (not that one, haha) the page should be locked.


 * But I do understand @Scrooge MacDuck as well, as ironically, protecting a page from spoilers being added to it, is, in itself, somewhat of a spolier. It's odd, but I completely get it. I think the time when a page needs protecting is often related to how much "the cat is out of the bag", spoiler-wise. And in the case of [REDACTED]... maybe not just yet. Grainy images with grey blobs doesn't seem like enough proof for a spolier to have merit. We should take into account bogus leaks, too.


 * In the words of Staff Sergeant Annie Frederick, "I’d advise hanging back [...] Wait and see – it may, just may, all be a clever hoax." 📯 📂 08:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Note from an admin on the outside
Hey, I'm not involved in any of this, but I wanted to address a really important misconception. The gist of T:ATTACKS is "attack the point, not the person".

When you edit on a public wiki, your work will be scrutinised. We don't get our own little corner of the wiki made private, so no one can touch our work and we don't have to worry about meeting common standards.

We've all had pages we worked really hard on deleted, and edits reverted. Especially when first starting out, there's a lot of standards we just don't know about, a lot of opportunities to step back and learn from the community.

The thing is, you do have to be open to this sort of discussion for there to be any real change. Whether or not this particular example with T:SPOIL is the way to go, I need you to think on whether these other users are addressing your edits or talking about you as a person when they're helping point your contributions in another direction.

Addressing your edits is our job here, especially when we notice a pattern that needs correcting. Coming in from another wiki, there's going to be some rough patches, here and there, since things work differently here.

And you have to be willing to collaborate to make things work. Without communication, it's gonna be the same cycle over and over again. Editors are going to keep coming to you to explain community standards. You're going to keep ignoring them and repeating the same edits, without ever finding common ground. And at a certain point, it becomes pretty disruptive having to carry on like this.

Looking everything over, I'm not seeing a T:NPA violation in any of this. Instead, I'm seeing other users doing their part in communicating with you on things that need to be worked on. And getting to be a little frustrated, over time, that you're not responding in kind.

Now if anyone had called you as a user "useless" or "inexplicable", we'd have a problem. That would absolutely be a personal attack. But instead, they're talking about your edits, which isn't at all the same thing.

All dedicated work feels intimate and personal -- and that's perfectly understandable -- but once cast out, it's no longer ours alone to control.

So I get feeling frustrated here. And I absolutely get that talk page messages can be terrifying, especially with the power imbalance inherent in being messaged by an admin.

But the solution is never going to be some special exemption from community collaboration. It's gonna take asking more questions, listening to others, voicing your own concerns and coming to understand theirs, then changing course as appropriate. Please take some time with this. 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Spoilers
Hi. I saw your post on a certain talk page and I just wanted to say that what you posted absolutely was enough to spoil this for me. There is really only one reason you would request a page to be locked for the reason you stated, so while you may not have been explicit, you were obvious. LauraBatham ☎  06:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I came to say the same. While I myself don't mind, there are some users who would be upset by such a spoiler, which your message made clear. While I'm certain your warning was in good faith, I think it does constitute enough of a spoiler. (I hope to be clear this is not intended to criticise you in any way, but to contribute to my agreement on the interpretation of the spoiler policy.) Chubby Potato ☎  07:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I should also add that I believe the edit was made good faith. I should have put that on my first message, sorry. LauraBatham ☎  07:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no way that my post spoiled anything for you. There is not only one reason as to why a page may be heading for an influx in activity. The post I made is so ambiguous that there is no way you'd be spoiled unless you did further research. If the issue had been dealt with immediately and not dragged into a huge argument it is extremely likely you may have not even seen it. With the page unlocked people will genuinely be spoiled before long. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  10:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @DrWHOCorrieFan... while I'm not really sure you can speak for other people, such as @LauraBatham, I do agree with you to the extent that your talk page reply was ambiguous, and would need further research, even just cursory, to be spoiled, in my opinion. However, I think you are partially culpable for this argument youself, as you decided to continually revert the edits removing your reply as opposed to asking the admin on a talk page why your reply was removed.
 * Also, as the page currently stands, there is no concern with spoilers. There may be if someone adds them in, but, if we remain vigilant, we can remove them quickly and minimise the damage. And frankly, I'd rather not have about half a dozen pages protected on this Wiki due to [REDACTED] upcoming release until late 2023. Does somewhat hinder editing those pages... 📯 📂 10:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have to reply to every discussion? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  10:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @DrWHOCorrieFan: "There is no way that my post spoiled anything for you." Are you calling me a liar? What other reason would there be for an expected influx of edits other than new information? And if the page needs to be locked, that information must be from an upcoming story. That right there is a spoiler. I can even get more specific without looking up anything. One can assume the story is TV seeing as generally no fuss is made if it is an audio/novel/comic because the EU gets far less spotlight, and considering the timing, it is not a difficult deduction as to which upcoming story. At this point, looking it up would merely be confirmation. LauraBatham ☎  11:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@DrWHOCorrieFan, unless if I break a policy, I am perfectly entitled to contribute to any disscussion on the Wiki where my input may be of help or interest, etc.

Also, as @LauraBatham has now confirmed the rationale of how she was spoiled, suffice to say, @Scrooge MacDuck's point holds true, which does justify why he redacted your message. 📯 📂 12:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@DrWHOCorrieFan: I honestly don't care if you've technically broken policy or not, it's about curtesy. You made a post, you were warned by a more experienced user - an admin no less - that it toed the line of being a spoiler, but instead of taking this into consideration, you re-added it. I was simply advising you that Scrooge's comments were correct. An assumption is still enough to ruin a surprise, whether it is correct or not. And in this case, it is a very reasonable assumption to make. Now if the character does show up, my reaction has gone from "Oh my God, they've brought back !" to "Yeah, I thought they might turn up". Maybe that would have been the case anyway if someone edited the page, but that will not necessarily happen. It is your own assumption that it will. So far, the only editor I've seen bring any attention to it has been yourself. Once again, I am sure this was not your intent, in fact I believe your intent was the exact opposite, but it is still the result. LauraBatham ☎  12:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I need to point out here that nowhere does Tardis:Spoiler policy explicitly forbid the kind of edit that we are discussing here, and since that is apparently the way we are interpreting rules on this wiki for now, User:DrWHOCorrieFan did nothing wrong. When/if the forums ever come back, it can be added to the policy, but for now no rules have been broken and this discussion should end. Shambala108 ☎  15:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: Checking in
In response to the message you left on @Shambala108's talk page, where you said...

...I have already pointed out on your talk page that it was, in my understanding, where you left a message, not entirely the content within. If you would've gone to, say, @Shambala108, and asked her discretely about locking the page, that would be one thing; user talk pages aren't traversed by many users. However, standard namespace pages and their talkpages are, so leaving a message like that in the open is entirely different to a talk page message. 📯 📂 20:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You are not an admin, I have no interest in what you have to say on this subject. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm trying to help you. If you can't see that, then perhaps take a break to recollect your thoughts? It may be best. 📯 📂 20:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in your help at this moment in time, I do not appreciate you butting into every discussion. This discussion already has several admins, what further information are you really able to provide? It is not necessary. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  20:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: Spoilers
After seeing your message on @Shambala108's talk page, I think you misunderstood a few points.

First and foremost, I have seen many sandboxes where spoilery pages are drafted, without knowing that a sub-policy of a policy forebade it. Evidently, every other Admin and editor has been in the same boat, as it was only with @Shambala108 helpfully pointing it out recently that has changed things. I have not been conducting "whataboutery" — to the contrary — I was highlighting precedents that guided me into the creation of such a sandbox, even if it was ultimately misguided.

Secondly, my second message to @Shambala108 was a genuine question that I would've asked regardless of my own sandbox.

Thirdly, Ncuti Gatwa is not a spoiler considering that he has been officially thanked in an issue of DWM. Category:People thanked by production holds that pages can be created for a mere thanking in an official source, and if you take a look at the latest version of the sandbox, the page is built around that official thanking, and there is no mention of Gatwa's role in series fourteen, thus not constituting spoilers. 📯 📂 11:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Noat
I'd just like to say that the reason I repeatedly removed the image was because it was visibly stretching the page before, and small pages like that one usually don't have multiple images. I do agree that they're both important, though - the gallery in the infobox that you added is probably a good idea, in a similar vein to what Tecteun has. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  11:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Russell Mcgee
Hi which of the redlink stories are the charity ones? Thanks Shambala108 ☎  18:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * OK I've removed the links from those. Shambala108 ☎  18:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Cwej-pages
Hey, I've been going through Special:LonelyPages and I noticed several pages that you created recently (namely all the Cwej-636984220 and similar pages) are taking space there. Please remember that every page needs to be linked from at least one other article. OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does indeed solve the problem of them showing up on Special:LonelyPages, and ensures that users will be able to find it via other pages. Thanks for adding the template. :) OncomingStorm12th ☎  15:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

For(u)m Letter
Hey there, I hope your Halloween was decent. As you might know, we've not had forums for over two years at this point. A few of the regular editors have been having a discussion on this topic at Forum talk:Index and we'd like the input of other prominent editors if you have the inclination. Cheers. Najawin ☎  08:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Theo Possible
Yes! It's available online starting here. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I — uhm. Well, that one is not… legally available online, but that is not to say that it is not available online. Certain FANDOM terms of use and Wiki proprieties forbid me giving you a direct link. But if you Google "read Miranda comic online", you may find what you're looking for very quickly, I will say that much. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Image captions
Hello. I see that you've added a few pictures to articles, which is fine but you haven't been giving them captions containing the source as required. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  23:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I notice that you're still doing this. Please consider familiarising yourself with Help:Image cheat card. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I, however, am an admin, and I concur that you should really try to add captions. Not saying it isn't an honest mistake, but it is a mistake. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, Help:Image cheat card says "A source for the picture is required at the end of the caption, in the format (Prefix: Story name)". Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * An admin is telling you above that that is the rule regardless of your interpretation. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in entering into an argument with you. You seem not to understand how things work here; one doesn't have to go through an admin to let another user know that they are making a mistake. Admins can't and shouldn't be expected to be here all the time. I let you know what the rule was, you ignored me, I messaged you again and now Scrooge, an admin, has confirmed what I have said.
 * I don't know if you're allowed to leave images on pages against the rules with the intention of adding an infobox later. It doesn't make much sense to me personally given how little work it takes to do both at the same time, but please explain that to an admin rather than me. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Kindly listen to other users when they let you know that you are making a mistake and please don't accuse other users of lacking moral decency. That could be construed as a personal attack, which is also against the rules. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Informing another user of a rule that they are not abiding by is not harrassment. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This isn't Wikipedia. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  18:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please listen to more experienced members of the community when they're telling you how to improve to meet community standards. They're quite correct. Thumbnail images without captions will be deleted.

And this is not your personal sandbox. If you need to leave things in an unfinished state, you will need to commit to seeing your efforts through, to be ready for our readers.

But don't take on too many things at once, let us know what's going on in edit summaries, be responsive when people point out problems with your editing patterns and remind you about community guidelines we've been upholding for well over a decade, and you'll be fine.

Again, this is a community effort. Any edit we make, published in the main namespace, can and will be held up to the same light as everyone else's.

If you're not sure your work is ready for public scrutiny, I'd recommend keeping rough drafts for your edits on your device... or simply keeping checklists for when you have the time and energy for seeing your edits through to the end. 20:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, as multiple users have directly expressed, they are trying to help you. Please keep Tardis:No personal attacks in mind before turning content-focused messages about editing mistakes, made in good faith, into personal beef with other users.


 * They are right to be messaging you. Respond to the point being made, instead of, please. 21:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Images
Hi, there. When you upload images, please make sure that they are less than 100 KB, that they are landscape rather than portrait if possible and that you add the appropriate categories. User:Cookieboy 2005 and I have recently gone through a lot of images you've uploaded to fix these problems where necessary.

Your recent upload, for example, was 174 KB and you didn't add any categories. I've shrunk the image and added Category:Revolutions of Terror comic story images (because we need to know which story it comes from) as well as Category:Tenth Doctor images, Category:Gabby Gonzalez images and Category:TARDIS exterior images. This way, they can be found in the future. - Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  22:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This will be ignored. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  00:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The wiki's rules shouldn't be ignored. The rules for images are laid out at Help:Image cheat card. Today I've had to resize more than thirty images that you've uploaded and ask that in future you upload them at the correct size and have them categorised, as Cookieboy 2005 had to go through them all and add categories the other day. Please abide by the rules. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  00:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @DrWHOCorrieFan, you can't just ignore policy, especially willfully; that'll get you blocked, especially if you also break T:POINT while you're at it.


 * Does anybody want you to be blocked? No, of course not, you're a good editor 'round these parts. It's not a complicated job to attribute copyright and sources to an image, to the contrary, it's incredibly easy.


 * Basically, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. It's not worth it! 01:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I've just had to shrink your latest upload and add categories to it. You've been told the rules but continue to ignore them, making more work for other users. Please start following the rules or I'll have to inform the admins that you're wilfully ignoring them. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  14:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

BBC DVD covers
Hi, I've been gathering every BBC DVD cover image on the wiki into one of my sandboxes, in order to see where there are any missing covers or duplicates.

Pop over and have a look, and feel free to upload any of the missing covers.

User:Doc77can/sandbox12

P.S. I'm messaging several users so check the upload log first.

Doc77can ☎  20:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Jack "BtR" Saxon
I agree the tone of some of Jack's latest messages was inappropriate and am disciplining him for this. In addition to the "willful ignorance" aspect, he should not be acting with vicarious admin authority in the way he has been doing; reminding people of policy is fine, but threatening blocks by proxy is certainly not.

On the flipside, however, please understand that his rude behaviour was caused (if not excused) by some genuinely wrong-headed choices on your part, too. I know you are acting in good faith with regards to the images, but if you found yourself unable to shrink a picture accurately, you should have given up on uploading it at all, instead of restoring it to the excessively large version; and then asked someone for help on how to compress an image correctly. Having made a good-faith, but failed, attempt to comply with the rule does not then entitle you to break the rule after all!

Also, while it would have been polite of Jack to comply with your request that he stop messaging you, I need you to understand that a user sending you objective messages about editing the Wiki is not harassment. Belittling you or claiming you're willfully ignoring the rules, yes, all these things are covered by T:NPA or at least our rules on assuming good faith. But you do not have standing to demand that he stop messaging you at all, provided the messages were to-the-point about editing the Wiki, were polite, and assumed good faith. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 14:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

A message
Hello. I messaged you some time ago after you started adding spaces to infoboxes. Later, I messaged you again as you hadn't been adding sources and had continued adding the spaces. You responded to that message by accusing me of policing your edits, so I apologised if said message had seemed accusatory and you accused me of "harrassing" you and misinterpreted a message I left NateBumber as describing your edits as vandalism. I assured you that neither I nor any of the editors were out to get you.

Months later, I messaged you, having completely forgotten about those prior interactions, because you hadn't been giving your images captions. You ignored my message and, when I messaged again three days later, you said that you did not have to listen to me because I am not an admin. An admin then backed me up but you continued to accused me of lacking moral decency and ignore my point, leading SOTO to ask you to "be responsive when people point out problems with your editing patterns and remind you about community guidelines we've been upholding for well over a decade".

More recently, I became aware of how many users are uploading images that break the rules. I messaged you because of the volume of comic images that you had uploaded which were far in excess of the limit and because you weren't adding categories. You told me that my message would be ignored and did not indicate to me or to Epsilon, who also messaged you, that you would have any difficulty. By uploading images that are too big and by not adding categories, you were making more work for other users like myself and CookieBoy. The only reason that I assumed that you had ignored my message was because... well, because you said that you would ignore my message.

You seem to think that I have it out for you and I'll say once again that this isn't the case. We're all faceless people on the internet spending our time writing about obscure Doctor Who topics and I have no strong opinions, positive or negative, towards anybody on this site. I deny "hound[ing]" you with "unfriendly messages and accusations" but, if I came across as rude, I'm sorry as that was never my intention. I do hope that any further interaction will be civil. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  15:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reply I can muster is that I hope any future interaction be nonexistent. I think there needs to be stronger rules around harassment/preventing interaction between certain users when one user is made to feel uncomfortable, intimidated or unwelcome. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎  15:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel uncomfortable and hope that you're able to get passed that and realise that, like SOTO told you, "When you edit on a public wiki, your work will be scrutinised. We don't get our own little corner of the wiki made private, so no one can touch our work and we don't have to worry about meeting common standards.". - Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  16:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know. FANDOM have updated their policies over the last few years, and I suppose that one slipped by. I think the spirit of it, mind you, is for more intently malicious sustained messaging; but Jack's actions do fall under the letter of the law all the same, so yes, you may request that he not message you anymore at all. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: Resizing images
Most image-editing software, such as 'Preview' (which comes with any Mac computer), has a resizing function in itself, which will ask you to type in the new width. You should probably check the opportunities on whatever device you use.

Alternatively, there are online services such as this one. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Warring
So, I don't want to clog up Epsilon's page. But I would consider warring to be focusing on one page and going back and forth over language/content. (And I might have inadvertently violated T:NO WARS depending on how you interpret my first undo of User:Sum41Champ's edit - I've just not been counting any of their edits as serious and proofreading all of them. So technically I think I went over the 4 undo limit, whoops.) They've been doing a bit of that, but they've also been spreading out their misunderstanding of policy across a ton of different pages, but it's always been the same misunderstandings, that people have kept telling them over and over are wrong. (Inconsequential grammar edits that actually make a page worse, violations of T:NO RW, misunderstanding the category system, adding irrelevant messages to talk pages, etc.) I'd consider this incompetence and a refusal to learn the rules, sure. Not warring. Najawin ☎  01:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: Wallbank image warring
I was originally planning to bring this up with Jack. However, when checking T:NO WARS, I was surprised to find that reverting violations of the image policies is explicitly allowed, even when it would otherwise constitute warring. Therefore, I did not bring this up or block Jack for it as he was technically within policy. Bongo50  ☎  22:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have brought the discussion to Epsilon's talk page sooner but, at the end of the day, I did do so. In future, I will make sure to do it sooner, though. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  22:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * If I'm being honest, I agree that this policy is a little strange. Perhaps it's something to bring up in the Tardis:temporary forums. Bongo50   ☎  22:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi there! I'm Hunter, and I see you've been editing a lot of Cwej pages. I'm very glad! Though I should make it clear (hopefully doing so doesn't break any rules, I don't use the wiki often) that the individuals on the back cover are Larles and Kwol, not Tina and Frey. Frey's "true form" was posted as an image on the Cwej: The Series Facebook page, which we mistakenly labeled as a Friend version of Romana. We've since included the artwork and used it for one of the Vignettes. Hopefully that makes sense! I can see how such a thing could be mistaken, so no worries. LilPotato ☎  00:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * She is indeed! That's her true form, what a Friend appears like under the humanoid mask most of them wear. Glad I could help. I believe there's a section in Hidden Truths that goes further into the Friend's corruption, what sets them apart from the Enemy, etc. If not, I better get that written in! LilPotato ☎  01:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Cabal of the Horned Beast
Ah, sorry, I think that was me not actually having read the whole thing and making stupid assumptions. I seem to remember having a reason for thinking they were the same, but it probably doesn't stand up to logic. I have an unfortunate habit of putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 (although it usually happens when I'm doing maths), so I doubt my reasoning was very good. Sorry about that. Aquanafrahudy 📢  16:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Return of the Discombobulated Woman
Hm, fair enough on it not being a charity book — though if it’s not part of the actual Brenda & Effie series, then it should not be listed at The Brenda and Effie Mysteries as if it were! Also, please don't do things like taking it upon yourself to "recreate" the page before you'd even heard back from me. At least give it a couple of days before expecting a reply from an admin! We have lives too, you know. Had you waited I could simply have restored the deleted page, without your having to recreate it manually. And in any case it wasn't technically within policy for you to do so. It's nothing serious, especially given that I do agree that within the state of the evidence you've presented, recreation was warranted — but still. Don't do it again. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't ‘ignore’ your message. Putting off replying to a message is not ‘ignoring’ a message! Talk page messages are much more like emails than they are like live messages. You don't have a duty to answer one right there and then just because you've seen it, at least not unless the poster specified that their matter was especially urgent in some way (like an active vandal or an ongoing technical issue). It would be something else if I'd failed to answer for a whole week or something while clearly being active in other areas of the Wiki — although, look up spoon theory; some types of Wiki activity are more spoon-intensive than others! — but if you're taking personally the fact of someone not replying to you until the next day, you're going to be setting yourself up for perceiving uncountable personal snubs where none are intended.


 * And also — again — just because an admin hasn't replied to you yet, does not give you a unilateral right to reverse their prior ruling. If I really had been giving you the silent treatment, the proper course of action would have been to notify me again, and, if I failed to reply then, to go ask another admin, or start a Forum thread. Not to take it upon yourself to recreate the page! And as I said, in this instance all it achieved was giving you unnecessary work. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy is Tardis:You are bound by current policy. Admin rulings, especially in matters of inclusion, remain in vigour until formally overturned, even if a user finds evidence that the earlier ruling was based on inaccurate facts. (That's why Brenda & Effie itself is still non-covered even though we now know about a lot of DWU elements in it that weren't mentioned in the original debate!) And my earlier deletion was not in error based on the facts which you had included on this page and the Brenda & Effie series page.


 * Moreover I find this last volley of messages from you to be failing to abide by Help:Assuming good faith. Not replying to a low-urgency message for less than a day is not "ignoring" you! Your actions wouldn't have been technically appropriate even if I had ignored you for an unseemly length of time, but that very premise is inaccurate. Replying literally the next day is unusually quick. I'm frankly baffled by your apparent determination to interpret it as some kind of personal insult. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "Ample time" to wait on a talk-page reply would have been, I don't know, a week. Reasonable time would have been a day or two. Expecting a reply before a full 24 hours has even elapsed is no time at all. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

RE: Immediate edits
Oh, sorry. Sometimes I find it helpful if other users point out that I've forgotten to source something (which I do rather regularly), but if you find it annoying, in the future I'll try to remember to wait a little while. :) Aquanafrahudy  📢  20:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

RE:Image move
Hi. These moves were not unnecessary. It has been practice for quite a while that images of covers that are textless have the added word "textless" to them. It is also quite common that these covers are not in the infobox, as they are, as I said, textless. We usually use covers with text on in the infoboxes. As for those, it is common practice that we add "(audio story)" to their titles, just as we do the pages. In short, as common practice, we don’t put just the title of the source as the image title. Danniesen ☎  18:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly they are textless covers. Danniesen ☎  11:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

T:NPA
Although it was unintended on my part, I am sorry for any offence or harm I may have caused to you by my claim on Talk:Fifteenth Doctor. Have a nice night! 23:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As highlight by @Scrooge MacDuck, I do recognise that I failed to assume good faith, and I shouldn't have. I will be more considerate of how I address yourself and others in the future. 00:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: Apology
Accusing people in a discussion of playing coy is not okay. It is a breach of our policies (as is typing in all-caps to indicate tone, though that’s rather minor in comparison). Whether or not Epsilon was also out of line, whether my honest mistake in overlooking one word in the whole talk page was or was not egregious — these things do not change the basic fact that you broke T:FAITH and T:CAPS. I, again, do not want to block you. But I do need you to understand that these were breaches of policy, and to pledge not to repeat such misbehaviour. That is what I asked of you when I spoke of an “apology”. Please confirm that you understand that you broke policy in those respects, and pledge not to do it again. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the caps thing.


 * I think you still do not understand what T:FAITH is all about. Here you go again, assuming that I was being intentionally ambiguous, or that I might be trying to block you under false pretenses. Never, ever attribute anything any editor says to deliberate malice or other deception unless they have explicitly admitted to such motives. It does not matter if you believe it to be likely. You must assume good faith, always, and never give the impression that you believe any other fellow editor to be less than completely earnest in their editing of the Wiki. Sometimes it’s a polite fiction, sometimes it’s useful to remember that it’s probably literally true. But either way it contributes to a better climate of editing. The good-faith policy is a very important one. Please, please step outside the specifics of this situation and try to understand it. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You yourself just wrote (emphasis mine):


 * Saying that you were being "coy" isn't even an attack, it literally pointing out that you were refusing to give an definitive answer regarding Epsilon's rulebreak which I now know is down to the apparent misreading.


 * That is, you yourself confirmed, when explaining what you meant, that by "being coy" you meant "refusing to give a definitive answer". This is precisely what I'm talking about. If people are ambiguous, do not assume that they are intentionally "refusing" to be clear; more likely there's been a misunderstanding or misreading somewhere along the line. As, indeed, was the case. Do you understand? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * …If deliberately refusing to give a definitive answer wouldn't have been bad-faith-behaviour in your opinion, why, in fact, were you telling me not to do it? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I mean, *I* would consider it bad-faith behaviour for an admin to deliberately “refuse” to give an answer to a policy-related question. It hadn’t occurred to me that you wouldn’t. (Again an honest misunderstanding, it would appear.) If you genuinely weren’t accusing me of any biased behaviour on that talk page, then obviously you didn’t break T:FAITH and the need for an apology is moot. Do you confirm as much? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm lost. Were you saying my actions were biased, or weren't you? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)