User talk:Xx-connor-xX

'''Welcome to the Thanks for your edits! We hope you'll keep on editing with us. This is a great time to have joined us, because now you can play the Game of Rassilon with us and win cool stuff! Well, okay, badges. That have no monetary value. And that largely only you can see. But still: they're cool!

We've got a couple of important quirks for a Wikia wiki, so let's get them out of the way first. British English, please We generally use British English round these parts, so if you're American, please be sure you set your spell checker to BrEng, and take a gander at our spelling cheat card. Spoilers aren't cool We have a strict definition of "spoiler" that you may find a bit unusual. Basically, a spoiler, to us, is anything that comes from a story which has not been released yet. So, even if you've got some info from a BBC press release or official trailer, it basically can't be referenced here. In other words, you gotta wait until the episode has finished its premiere broadcast to start editing about its contents. Please check the spoiler policy for more details. Other useful stuff Aside from those two things, we also have some pages that you should probably read when you get a chance, like:
 * the listing of all our help, policy and guideline pages
 * our Manual of Style
 * our image use policy
 * our user page policy
 * a list of people whose job it is to help you

If you're brand new to wiki editing — and we all were, once! —  you probably want to check out these tutorials at Wikipedia, the world's largest wiki:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this: ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for becoming a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on my talk page. Doug86 ☎  12:43, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your edits. When starting a new page, there are a few things you need to know so you can help the wiki keep a consistent style: Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! 21:14, July 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Bold the subject of an article in the lead (T:BOLD)
 * Write in the past tense (T:IU)
 * Cite your information (T:CITE)
 * Add the most relevant category (T:CAT)
 * Make sure images uploaded follow our image policy

More policies: Shambala108 ☎  01:29, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * Tardis:Naming conventions - article names are usually singular
 * punctuation - sentences end with a period.
 * Tardis:Doctors - always specify which Doctor if known.

Kamishi, Tengobushi, Sanukuma, or Nothing Is Easy
Hi, I'm sorry to be working over you. Believe me, I know how it sometimes feel. But, as typical of Doctor Who, nothing is easy or is what it seems.

I do not know if you've listened to The Diary of River Song, Series 1. It is closely connected to what I'm gonna say. Both box sets feature the same species of all-powerful beings from the beginning of time. As they are a big reveal every time, they are not present in any promotional materials so far.

It happened with the Diary that Sanukuma were taken to be a species (you can read my comments on the talk page there). But they are just one of the castes of Kamishi. Similarly, Tengobushi is another caste. A third caste is mentioned by name in one of the stories of Shutdown, but no information was provided about it. Kamishi are said to have a complicated hierarchy of castes and chapters. So we cannot assume anything. My main message to you is: this is not simple. I myself am not editing these pages (other than correcting mistakes) for two reasons: I need to relisten to make sure that my edits are correct. This is all intricate stuff. Secondly, the spelling of Kamishi has never been confirmed by the production team. I'm still hoping they will do it. This is the reason why the page Kamishi has not been created yet: it could be Camishi.

Anyway, I wish you all the luck, am sorry if my edits made you feel bad. But things on this Wiki should at least be correct. God knows, they are incomplete. But correctness is the minimum I strive for. Amorkuz ☎  23:27, July 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I haven't ruffled your feathers earlier. I'm sorry to say that you've created some extra work for me though, work I would have preferred to do at the time of my choosing rather than now. I'm sure you didn't mean it, so let me try to explain what happened to avoid such clashes in the future.


 * Disclaimer, I am not an admin, so this is my personal complaint rather than an official reprimand. If you feel that I'm being unfair, you can always ask an admin to check it out.


 * You had an alternative proposal from mine, which is totally fine, and I would be happy to work together with you. But you acted on your proposal before waiting for my response. While creating new pages is generally a good idea, it would be good if this really helps other editors without creating extra work for them. In this case, Sanukuma had all the info on Kamishi from the Diary, not on Sanukuma. In other words, the information on Sanukuma was missing and the information on Kamishi from UNIT was missing. After you created a page for Kamishi, information on Sanukuma is still missing on the Sanukuma page, information from Kamishi from the UNIT is still missing. But, in addition, information about Kamishi from the Diary is missing on the Kamishi page. So, in a sense, this created more work. And this is why I complain. Note also that the talk page of Sanukuma and the history of changes to Sanukuma, which both were always more about Kamishi than Sanukuma, will not now be ported to the page about Kamishi. This is one of the reasons why I thought moving Sanukuma to Kamishi was the best choice. Again, I may have been wrong, and would have been happy to discuss this with you, if you only waited for my response.


 * Just to let you know, another situation where creating a new page without listening to the audio may create extra work for other users, including admins, is when the online cast only mentions one name of a character but the audio provides his/her full name, first and last. T:CHAR NAMES states that the page should be named by the first and last name, and moves are only allowed by admins. I can cite several examples from the new series Bex was created and then was moved to Rebecca Young, Kevin (Technophobia) was created and then moved to Kevin Jones based on the text of the audio. This involves changing all the links to the old page, after which an admin has to move the page, which is a work that can be avoided easily by listening to the audio.


 * Thus, I would appreciate it if, in the future, in case another editor is clearly involved in something you're planning to edit, to try and ask for their opinion first instead of acting unilaterally. It helps avoid conflicts. Plus I've been humbled many times when other more experienced editors explained to me their reasoning. It is truly my experience on this Wiki that people mostly do things for a reason. If we do not understand this reason, it always pays to ask before acting. Amorkuz ☎  09:55, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

Editing on this wiki
Hi! I feel like I need to make two things clear to you. Please review the policies listed above before you create any more pages. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  13:53, July 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not the job of anyone on this wiki to have to clean up after other users. If you want to add content or make new pages on this wiki, you must learn our policies. Two admins have given you some important ones dealing with creating pages. In addition, another way to learn how to edit here is to browse several different pages to see how things are done. Keep in mind that it is much easier to delete someone's work than to clean up after multiple page violations, and continued ignoring of policies can result in your work being deleted.
 * I can't quite tell from your conversation with User:Amorkuz if this is the case, but if you haven't read/watched/listened to a story, you should not be creating pages relating to it. For in universe pages, the only sources we allow are the stories themselves, and if you don't know the story, you can't correctly create/edit pages relating to it.

Spoiler policy
Hi! Please make sure you thoroughly read Tardis:Spoiler policy and don't post spoilers anywhere, even the discussion boards. Shambala108 ☎  01:48, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Image licenses
Please note that all images uploaded to the wiki must have a license, or they will be deleted. You can select a license from the dropdown list when uploading. 23:09, December 7, 2016 (UTC)

Nocturne hosts
Hi, first of all, I've been setting this guy to be renamed into King Nocturne for some time now. Better than a dab term. Secondly, I would think that your new category supersedes Category:Human hosts, which now needs to be removed from the hosts' pages. Wouldn't you agree? Amorkuz ☎  07:45, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Same questions over and over and over again
I just need speculation (opinions & theories); not facts (fact checking). Doctor 25 ☎  21:35, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Not trolling
I'm not a troll. I just need opinions and theories/speculation; not fact checking/facts. Doctor 25 ☎  16:20, January 7, 2017 (UTC)
 * You ask the same questions again and again and again, and never have I seen you ask a question which wasn't obvious/up for interpretation. Xx-connor-xX ☎  16:23, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

I'm just asking them in a different category to get better answers. Doctor 25 ☎  18:37, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Doctor 25: Age
I'm 20 years old. Doctor 25 ☎  09:55, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi! Please do not post anything that might be a spoiler in your edit summaries. Please review Tardis:Spoiler policy and Tardis:Edit summary. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  21:28, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
 * Huge mistake! Wasn't thinking, won't happen again. Xx-connor-xX ☎  22:30, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers in Discussions
Hi, I've noticed that you often discuss the yet unreleased episodes of the show in Discussions. The most recent post I had to delete presented an episode-by-episode timeline of the Master and included the season finale into it, complete with the title of the episode. Given that this is not the first time you're violating T:SPOIL there, please be aware that, to allow everyone else to enjoy the season finale unperturbed, I will be forced to block you in case of any further violations. We cannot compromise the comfort of our readers for one editor. You would do good to reread the spoiler policy as well as Discussions guidelines, which explicitly state: you should NOT talk about stories, in any medium, which haven't been officially released yet. If you need to discuss the upcoming episode, please do it at the Howling. Amorkuz ☎  17:33, June 29, 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand this at all? Nothing I posted in that one incident was a spoiler at all, except possibly the title of the final episode which I didn't know was a spoiler, just my personal opinion/theory which I labeled it as! If the only thing that was wrong was me posting the title of the episode then that is what you should have commented on instead of attempting to exasperate the situation! Also, I'd be interested to see a few more examples of my rule breaks - as nothing I've posted in months and months have been removed/commented on. Xx-connor-xX ☎  19:37, June 29, 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain which part of you should NOT talk about stories, in any medium, which haven't been officially released yet is unclear to you? Please note the emphasis. I see at the top of the Discussions page two posts by you that have "final" in the title of the post. You regularly "talk" about the yet unreleased season finale. So there is little surprise that in your constant discussions of it you crossed the line and could have seriously spoiled the season finale for unsuspecting readers. Please do not mistake the absence of punitive measures for an an implicit confirmation of rule compliance of your posts. T:SPOIL, which governs the Discussions too, clearly defines a spoiler as "Any information about an unbroadcast or unreleased story". You would note that both the Discussions Guidelines and the spoiler policy make absolutely no exceptions, period.
 * My goal was not to punish you. My goal was to ensure people can enjoy the unspoiled season finale. The title of it is not just a spoiler, it is a whale of a spoiler. Just because you've known it for quite some time makes you forget just how big of a spoiler that is. The fact that in this particular post, the title was hidden deep inside and could have hijacked an unsuspecting reader makes it even worse.
 * You have been warned about the spoiler policy before, twice. One of those times you were explicitly asked not to post spoilers on Discussion boards. Since after these two incidents, when the policy was pointed out to you, you still claim that you did not know the title of an episode is a spoiler, it is clear that you cannot be relied on for following the policy yourself. You will be blocked until it is safe to discuss the season finale without risking to adversely affect other readers. Amorkuz ☎  06:44, June 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely disgraceful conduct! Speculating about episodes that have not aired yet is not a spoiler it is speculation! I made sure to not include anything I'd seen in the trailers etc. The only thing I believe I have done wrong is post the episode title. Xx-connor-xX ☎  09:29, June 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * After reading T:SPOIL three times you still missed the following portion of it:
 * What, then, do we do with information that comes from a reputable source like the BBC itself? We use it only on the series page. It cannot be used elsewhere. The three biggest types of "official" info are story titles, casting information, and the odd leak of in-universe information.
 * I'm glad you finally realised that you had violated the policy. But you had to know this after your first warning. Repeated violations of the spoiler policy after the first warning will not be tolerated whether your comprehension of the policy is complete or not. It is your responsibility to know the policies and abide by them. You would do well to finally learn the policy in its entirety. That is the best way of avoiding such incidents in the future. Amorkuz ☎  11:52, June 30, 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've admitted to exasperating the situation. Sill confused as to why my bad if for so long. Xx-connor-xX ☎  12:51, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

re-emphasizing some policies
Hi, as I posted above, please review the following policies when creating pages: Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  22:11, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
 * Tardis:In-universe perspective
 * Tardis:Doctors
 * Tardis:Citation

Third time
Hi, for the third time I am telling you to make yourself familiar with Tardis:Doctors. As I've specified above, you must learn our policies if you want to continue to create pages on this wiki. It is no one's job to clean up after you and it is unfair of you to expect it of other users. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  18:30, October 25, 2017 (UTC)


 * The "corrections" on the pages I have created are EXTREMELY minor, with the page's factual accuracy not being at risk without these edits. While on the subject, I find it highly intimidating and unwelcoming for some users (no names being mentioned but there is one user I particular) that are continuously "correcting" other people's work mere seconds after it has been posted. My question is why can't these people create the missing pages themselves - it seems they much prefer looking more superior by correcting others. Xx-connor-xX ☎  18:52, October 25, 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you misunderstand the nature of this wiki. The purpose is not to look superior or be more right. The purpose is to provide the best possible material as a collaborative effort. Hence, any (justified) corrections are welcome as they improve the quality of the wiki. The said editor has also corrected and expanded many of my edits, for which I am grateful. We all make mistakes from time to time, so a helping hand should always be appreciated.
 * The reason wiki paradigm is so successful is exactly because we can pool our knowledge and skills. Somebody knows Obverse well but may be a novice editor. Others might have no clue about Obverse but know how categories work on the wiki. Long-time admins can provide knowledge about esoteric policies and explain how they had been arrived at.
 * As a matter of general sanity, editors are strongly discouraged from creating pages based on stories they are not familiar with. However, correcting a typo or bringing links in compliance with a policy can be done by anyone. It is generally a rather thankless job, to be honest. There is very little glamour in going around the wiki and correcting "center" into "centre". But it needs to be done nevertheless.
 * Having said that, while random mistakes will always happen, systemic mistakes can be avoided. When an admin points out a policy, it is primarily to avoid such systemic mistakes in the future. There is no reason continuing to do things wrong to be later corrected, especially if, for whatever reason, one doesn't like being corrected. The simplest solution is really to start following the policy. Amorkuz  ☎  19:11, October 25, 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never said that corrections are unwelcome, but it is extremely intimidating when every single edit a person makes is corrected within seconds especially when the only problem that seems to have arisen with my edits is that I have incorrectly labelled the Doctor on my pages (by making it "the Doctor" as a link instead of for example "Tenth Doctor" as the link) when the only reason I have been making that mistake is because my earlier edits from weeks ago where I correctly lablled the Doctor were "corrected" by the same user. Xx-connor-xX  ☎  19:19, October 25, 2017 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that User:GusF was working on the wiki at the same time you were, and when he saw mistakes, he corrected them. It's not personal. Many editors on this wiki (myself included) spend time going through Special:WikiActivity and/or Special:Recentchanges to see what new edits might need cleanup.


 * And please specify which edits you are referring to when you say they were "corrected" so I can check on it. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎  00:39, October 27, 2017 (UTC)


 * As I've said it is extremely intimidating when every single edit a person makes is corrected within seconds - this person seems to have a lot of time on their hands as literally moments after myself and others have created an article they are there to edit it, why can't this person go about using their time to create these missing pages in the first place? And, I'm not sure how long ago it was (a few weeks maybe?) but my edits were corrected which is why I began linking "Doctor" instead of say "Tenth Doctor"... Xx-connor-xX ☎  00:45, October 27, 2017 (UTC)


 * It wasn't my intention to intimidate anyone. It is most certainly not personal. As Amorkuz said earlier, this Wiki is a collaborative effort. It was not an issue of having too much time on my hands. I just so happened to be perusing Special:WikiActivity - which I do frequently - at the same time that you made your edits and I noticed that you were continually citing Doctors and stories incorrectly so I corrected said citations. I didn't see the point in waiting five or ten minutes to do so. There's really nothing more to it than that.


 * I didn't create these missing pages in the first place as I am not familiar with the relevant stories. However, I am very familiar with the proper way to cite things on this Wiki so I decided to cleanup your edits.


 * The only corrections that I made to any of your previous edits were of the same nature as the ones which you found intimidating e.g. I changed the Doctor to the Tenth Doctor (or the Fourth Doctor in some cases) and, to give an example of the incorrectly cited stories, changed (COMIC: The Memory Collective) to (COMIC: The Memory Collective).


 * All of these corrections were done to bring your edits into line with the Wiki's policies. There were not done for the purpose of either intimidating you or making myself look superior. --GusF ☎  09:09, October 27, 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying earlier, but I just noticed today that you had replied to my last post on the 27th. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but on this wiki it is customary to reply to someone on their talk page, not your own. When I get a message on my talk page, I receive a notification and an email. That's how I know someone has tried to get in touch with me. When you respond to my comment on your talk page, I might easily miss it, especially if I'm away from the wiki for several hours.

Anyway, back to the point. I feel like you're missing the point here. We have many policies for many reasons, and you might think it's "EXTREMELY minor", but that's a little bit dismissive of the effort we've gone through as a wiki to make this an informational source of everything DWU. We don't make the policies just for the fun of them, and you're free to dislike them if you choose, but you must follow them. Repeated ignoring of policies can result in work being deleted because sometimes it's just less trouble to delete something than to search through the source code to correct it. And it's important to stress what Amorkuz was saying above: this is a group effort, and when we correct others, it's to make the wiki the best it can be, not give ourselves a feeling of superiority.

As for the edits that you say were corrected re: "when the only reason I have been making that mistake is because my earlier edits from weeks ago where I correctly lablled the Doctor were "corrected" by the same user", I can't help you with that unless you can give me specific examples so I can investigate. Even just giving me the article names would help.

Lastly, I suggest you take a look at Tardis:No personal attacks. Your comments about GusF are not personal attacks per se, but your complaining about his editing, his so-called free time, and his not creating the pages himself could be seen as an attack if you continue. Please just accept that he is doing his best for this wiki and he is not doing anything wrong or against policy in correcting your edits. Thanks for reading this very long message, Shambala108 ☎  02:16, November 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * I will continue to reply here, if that’s okay with you, as I think it is very bizarre have one conversation spanning two pages - especially when reflecting later on.


 * I’m not sure which pages but I have been making sure that all the unlinked planets and species on major pages such as the Doctor pages and certain companion pages have been linked with a page created. A few weeks ago or so my edits were changed to the now apparently incorrect link by the user in question yet you still made comments on my talk page telling me to read and understand the terms - which is why I’m now doing the wrong links.


 * And as for the comment about person attacks, I find that laughable. Personally I feel like the one being attacked - I haven’t even mentioned the users’ name. I have simply shared my thoughts on how intimidating and frustrating it can be if every single edit a person makes is changed in seconds by someone who spends a vast majority of their time on the site and could very well put some of that time into making sure the pages exist in the first place! Xx-connor-xX ☎  02:44, November 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * Shambala108 already warned you that you are approaching personal attacks. Right now you are standing on the boundary. Let me be crystal clear. You have the right feeling intimidated and frustrated. You have the right to complain about it to admins. Your complaints will be investigated and measures will be taken or not taken accordingly. However, you do not have the right to issue critical opinions on editing habits of other editors as long as they do not violate any policies. What they do on the wiki and how they spend their free time is their own thing. What you do on the wiki and how you spend your free time is your own thing. Neither you nor another editor, not even an admin, can tell somebody else what they should be doing and how they should be doing it, unless the policies are violated. One can politely ask another for help, explaining the reasons. But statements like “could very well put some of their time into what I want them to do/think they must do” will not be tolerated. As for your accusation that you have been misled by another user, it will be investigated as soon as you provide exact information on when and where this occurred. Amorkuz ☎  11:00, November 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me remind you that you were the ones who started this conversation and even brought the user in question’s name up. While I was irritated by this user’s actions I was fine to let it go on despite it making me feel really uncomfortable and intimidated. I have not tried to attack this user, I haven’t even mentioned their name once, I have just pointed out my opinions when they were forced out of my by the pair of you. Xx-connor-xX ☎  14:09, November 2, 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: page moves
Please, let admin deal with that. Use and/or  to request it. Amorkuz ☎  19:50, July 10, 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I remembered straight after I had moved the page and so quickly reverted. Thanks. Xx-connor-xX ☎  19:52, July 10, 2018 (UTC)

Spoilers
Hi, you've been blocked for posting spoilers at Pakistan in violation of Tardis:Spoiler policy. Instead of me letting this pass, I'm blocking you for the following reasons: The usual procedure for dealing with spoilers during a current season is to block the offender for the remainder of the season. Your block is three months, which should cover that time period. Shambala108 ☎  22:09, October 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * You've been warned before about our spoiler policy, which means you either have already read it or you should have read it.
 * You reverted an edit made by two different more experienced users who cited the spoiler policy for reverting the original edit. Please note that "it's done on other pages" is never an excuse for allowing a policy violation. We have 65000+ pages to patrol, and only two admins and half a dozen regular users who are committed to keeping up with cleanup. It's a given that things will fall through the cracks, but that doesn't mean the policies don't exist or don't count.
 * If you ever have a question about why someone makes an edit or reverts it, especially if they cite a policy, ask on either the article talk page or the user's talk page. Don't keep reverting the edits, as that leads to edit wars.

user names
Hi please make sure you are in compliance with Tardis:Username policy thanks Shambala108 ☎  00:26, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Lord President
Right! The heads' up is much appreciated. Yeah, Wikia really ought to have a "is someone currently editing this page?" function… --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  22:16, April 2, 2020 (UTC)

Editing the Presidency navbox
Hi! Since you've been editing as much as me, I wanted to share an idea for an adit at Template:Presidency I've had, before I put it into practice. With the last few edits making it obvious that we just have several incompatible account, it's getting quite ungainly to just attempt to put the Lord Presidents in in-universe chronological order, not to mention quite hard to do without breaking T:NPOV. And it is, in the end, of limited use to readers.

So I suggest, since these navboxes don't have to be as strictly in-universe as other things, that we split it into several boxes based on loosely-define "eras", and then, within each era, simply put the Presidents in the order in which they were introduced (or introduced-as-Presidents, in cases of characters like Romana).

What would the 'eras' be, you ask? Well, you could have "Dark Times" for Rassilon and his successors, then "The Doctor's early life" for the various Presidents who were said to be in office while the Doctor lived on Gallifrey, then "Second and Third Doctors' lives" (or something) for the Presidents from The War Games up until Pandad IV's death. (Usefully, The Legacy of Gallifrey even mentions there being an in-universe "break" between Pandad IV and his successors), then "Interim presidencies" for the almost-presidents and Acting Presidents and unfulfilled Doctor presidencies between The Deadly Assasssin and The Five Doctors, then "War-time era" for Flavia onwards, meaning all the Presidents from the Time Wars (whether "Last Great" or "In Heaven"), and finally "Post-Last Great Time War", which is self-evident enough.

So… sound good? Any ideas on how to improve this concept if you approve of the basic idea? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:44, April 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Well as a matter of fact, splitting into eras would allow for this; e.g. Rassilon would be linked from both the "Dark Times" box and the "Wartime" box. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:10, April 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * (We could also add an "Undated" box, of course. Though on the other hand, we can date the Imperator well enough to put him in one specific era.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:16, April 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * The Imperator legally cannot be Morbius as such, but we can definitely say he is "the rebellious President whom The Book of the War described as part of a historical narrative strikingly similar to Postar the Perfidious's account of the Civil War, in which the rebellious President was instead named Morbius". So that we're going with "the version with Morbius" and "the version with the Imperator" being two different, if (supposedly)-conflicting, accounts of the same event. That way we can allow The Imperator to be in the same spot as Morbius. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:23, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Restored vs. aborted timeline
About that — what is all this business with "restored" vs. "aborted" timelines? What's your source? There are stories which suggest the War in Heaven is averted, but then there are others which bring the whole "Nine Gallifreys" thing into play to suggest that only one pathway of the War was stopped and that it continues to rage.

But this is all very complicated, with retcons upon retcons and authors trying to undermine each other's ideas of how the story of the War should go. I'd rather we not take a side in these Faction Paradox politics.

If you like, we could attempt to segregate "Wartime" into "Presidents during the War in Heaven and lead-up thereof" and "Presidents during the Last Great Time War and lead-up thereof", of course. But I don't really want to call The War King an aborted timeline altogether. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:18, April 5, 2020 (UTC)

Discussions
Hi I want to make one thing clear here. Please do not assume and/or accuse other users, who are participating in discussions, of not reading/hearing the material in question. There is no place on the wiki that requires that users read something before commenting on it.

Specifically, at Talk:Osgood - list of appearances, User:Scrooge MacDuck was providing information relating to the discussion, and at no point did he say he wasn't familiar with the material in question. Your response was incorrect and, by calling him "clueless" and claiming that he hadn't even read the thread, possibly a violation of Tardis:No personal attacks. And please re-read his comments carefully; at no point does he even say that he's not familiar with the material.

Just argue the points, don't argue the person. Thanks Shambala108 ☎  22:16, May 10, 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't bother to take seriously my message above, since you continued the prohibited behavior on my talk page, thereby violating Tardis:No personal attacks after being warned. Blocked. Shambala108 ☎  22:30, May 10, 2020 (UTC)